Barotrauma during Noninvasive Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia Outside ICU: The Ancillary COVIMIX-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 surge for patients with acute respiratory failure. However, little data are available about barotrauma during NIRS in patients treated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. METHODS: COVIMIX-2 was an ancillary analysis of the previous COVIMIX study, a large multicenter observational work investigating the frequencies of barotrauma (i.e., pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum) in adult patients with COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia. Only patients treated with NIRS outside the ICU were considered. Baseline characteristics, clinical and radiological disease severity, type of ventilatory support used, blood tests and mortality were recorded. RESULTS: In all, 179 patients were included, 60 of them with barotrauma. They were older and had lower BMI than controls (p < 0.001 and p = 0.045, respectively). Cases had higher respiratory rates and lower PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The frequency of barotrauma was 0.3% [0.1-1.3%], with older age being a risk factor for barotrauma (OR 1.06, p = 0.015). Alveolar-arterial gradient (A-a) DO2 was protective against barotrauma (OR 0.92 [0.87-0.99], p = 0.026). Barotrauma required active treatment, with drainage, in only a minority of cases. The type of NIRS was not explicitly related to the development of barotrauma. Still, an escalation of respiratory support from conventional oxygen therapy, high flow nasal cannula to noninvasive respiratory mask was predictive for in-hospital death (OR 15.51, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COVIMIX-2 showed a low frequency for barotrauma, around 0.3%. The type of NIRS used seems not to increase this risk. Patients with barotrauma were older, with more severe systemic disease, and showed increased mortality.

Italian good practice recommendations on management of persons with Long-COVID.

A significant number of people, following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, report persistent symptoms or new symptoms that are sustained over time, often affecting different body systems. This condition, commonly referred to as Long-COVID, requires a complex clinical management. In Italy new health facilities specifically dedicated to the diagnosis and care of Long-COVID were implemented. However, the activity of these clinical centers is highly heterogeneous, with wide variation in the type of services provided, specialistic expertise and, ultimately, in the clinical care provided. Recommendations for a uniform management of Long-COVID were therefore needed. Professionals from different disciplines (including general practitioners, specialists in respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, internal medicine, geriatrics, cardiology, neurology, pediatrics, and odontostomatology) were invited to participate, together with a patient representative, in a multidisciplinary Panel appointed to draft Good Practices on clinical management of Long-COVID. The Panel, after extensive literature review, issued recommendations on 3 thematic areas: access to Long-COVID services, clinical evaluation, and organization of the services. The Panel highlighted the importance of providing integrated multidisciplinary care in the management of patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and agreed that a multidisciplinary service, one-stop clinic approach could avoid multiple referrals and reduce the number of appointments. In areas where multidisciplinary services are not available, services may be provided through integrated and coordinated primary, community, rehabilitation and mental health services. Management should be adapted according to the patient's needs and should promptly address possible life-threatening complications. The present recommendations could provide guidance and support in standardizing the care provided to Long-COVID patients.

Mental health symptoms one year after acute COVID-19 infection: Prevalence and risk factors.

Introduction: Emerging evidence suggests that mental health symptoms in COVID-19 survivors are higher than expected, possibly indicating that such symptoms are more likely to develop post-infection than just persist as a residual component of the acute phase. It is thus imperative to investigate the potential development of a post-COVID mental health syndrome in the longer-term and identify its risk factors. Material and methods: A prospective study investigated mental health symptoms associated with COVID-19 and its determinants over a 12-month period following the disease onset in all consecutive adult inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 attending a tertiary referral hospital from March to May 2020. Results: A total of 479 patients (female, 52.6%) were followed-up for 12 months after COVID-19 onset. Of them, 47.2% were still presenting with at least one symptom. While most symptoms subsided as compared to COVID-19 onset (all p < 0.001), a significant increase was observed only for symptoms of psychiatric disorders (10.2%) and lack of concentration and focus (20%; all p < 0.001). Patients presenting with symptoms related to multiple body systems 12 months after contracting COVID-19 (all p ≤ 0.034) were more likely to suffer from mental health domain-related symptoms at follow-up. Also, a higher risk of presenting with lack of concentration and focus 12 months post infection was found in those suffering of psychiatric symptoms at COVID-19 onset (p = 0.005). Conclusions: Findings of this study may have important public health implications, as they underlie the increased need for mental health support in COVID-19 survivors.

Introducción: Nuevas evidencias sugieren que los síntomas de salud mental en los supervivientes de COVID-19 son mayores de lo esperado, lo que posiblemente indica que es más probable que dichos síntomas se desarrollen después de la infección en vez de sólo persistir como componente residual de la fase aguda. Por lo tanto, es imperativo investigar el posible desarrollo de un síndrome de salud mental post-COVID a largo plazo e identificar sus factores de riesgo. Materiales y métodos: Un estudio prospectivo investigó los síntomas de salud mental asociados a la COVID-19 y sus determinantes durante un periodo de 12 meses tras el inicio de la enfermedad en todos los pacientes adultos consecutivos con COVID-19, hospitalizados y ambulatorios, que acudieron a un hospital de tercer nivel entre marzo y mayo de 2020. Resultados: Un total de 479 pacientes (mujeres, 52,6%) fueron seguidos durante 12 meses después del inicio de COVID-19. De ellos, el 47,2% seguía presentando al menos un síntoma. Mientras que la mayoría de los síntomas disminuyeron en comparación con el inicio de la COVID-19 (todos p < 0,001), se observó un aumento significativo solamente de los síntomas de los trastornos psiquiátricos (10,2%) y la falta de concentración y enfoque (20%; todos p < 0,001). Los pacientes que presentaban síntomas relacionados con múltiples sistemas del cuerpo 12 meses después de contraer la COVID-19 (todos p ≤ 0,034) tenían más probabilidades de sufrir síntomas relacionados con el dominio de la salud mental en el seguimiento. Además, se encontró un mayor riesgo de presentar falta de concentración y enfoque 12 meses después de la infección en los que sufrían síntomas psiquiátricos al inicio de COVID-19 (p = 0,005). Conclusiones: Los resultados de este estudio pueden tener importantes implicaciones para la salud pública, ya que subyacen a la mayor necesidad de apoyo a la salud mental de los supervivientes de COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies: a report from the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment decreases the hospitalisation rate in immunocompetent patients with COVID-19, but data on efficacy in patients with haematological malignancy are scarce. Here, we describe the outcome of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment in a large cohort of the latter patients. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study from the multicentre EPICOVIDEHA registry (NCT04733729) on patients with haematological malignancy, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between January and September 2022. Patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were compared to those who did not. A logistic regression was run to determine factors associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration in our sample. Mortality between treatment groups was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival plots after matching all the patients with a propensity score. Additionally, a Cox regression was modelled to detect factors associated with mortality in patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Findings: A total of 1859 patients were analysed, 117 (6%) were treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 1742 (94%) were treated otherwise. Of 117 patients receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 80% had received ≥1 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose before COVID-19 onset, 13% of which received a 2nd vaccine booster. 5% were admitted to ICU. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment was associated with the presence of extrapulmonary symptoms at COVID-19 onset, for example anosmia, fever, rhinitis, or sinusitis (aOR 2.509, 95%CI 1.448-4.347) and 2nd vaccine booster (aOR 3.624, 95%CI 1.619-8.109). Chronic pulmonary disease (aOR 0.261, 95%CI 0.093-0.732) and obesity (aOR 0.105, 95%CI 0.014-0.776) were not associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use. After propensity score matching, day-30 mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was 2%, significantly lower than in patients with SARS-CoV-2 directed treatment other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (11%, p = 0.036). No factor was observed explaining the mortality difference in patients after nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration. Interpretation: Haematological malignancy patients were more likely to receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir when reporting extrapulmonary symptoms or 2nd vaccine booster at COVID-19 onset, as opposed to chronic pulmonary disease and obesity. The mortality rate in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was lower than in patients with targeted drugs other than nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Funding: EPICOVIDEHA has received funds from Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States (Project 2020-8223).

Passive pre-exposure immunization by tixagevimab/cilgavimab in patients with hematological malignancy and COVID-19: matched-paired analysis in the EPICOVIDEHA registry.

Only few studies have analyzed the efficacy of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to prevent severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related complications in hematologic malignancies (HM) patients. Here, we report cases of breakthrough COVID-19 after prophylactic tixagevimab/cilgavimab from the EPICOVIDEHA registry). We identified 47 patients that had received prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in the EPICOVIDEHA registry. Lymphoproliferative disorders (44/47, 93.6%) were the main underlying HM. SARS-CoV-2 strains were genotyped in 7 (14.9%) cases only, and all belonged to the omicron variant. Forty (85.1%) patients had received vaccinations prior to tixagevimab/cilgavimab, the majority of them with at least two doses. Eleven (23.4%) patients had a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, 21 (44.7%) a moderate infection, while 8 (17.0%) had severe infection and 2 (4.3%) critical. Thirty-six (76.6%) patients were treated, either with monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, corticosteroids, or with combination schemes. Overall, 10 (21.3%) were admitted to a hospital. Among these, two (4.3%) were transferred to intensive care unit and one (2.1%) of them died. Our data seem to show that the use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab may lead to a COVID-19 severity reduction in HM patients; however, further studies should incorporate further HM patients to confirm the best drug administration strategies in immunocompromised patients.

Antibody, cell-mediated response and infection susceptibility in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell recipients after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (allo-SCT) have reduced responses to vaccines due to immunosuppressive status linked to GvHD prophylaxis and treatment. In our study, we compared humoral responses to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, and infection onset, according to patients and transplant features; we also evaluated cellular response in patients without seroconversion. METHODS: We tested antibodies titer after second and third vaccine doses. Antibodies were detected through an immune-enzymatic assay. In a patients' subgroup without seroconversion, we tested cell-mediated responses evaluating interferon-gamma release by T-lymphocytes exposed to virus spike protein. RESULTS: Seroconversion rate increased from 66% at 30 days to 81% at 90 days after the second dose; it was 97% at 150 days after the third dose. We found a significant association between seroconversion after the second dose and two variables: shorter interval between allo-SCT and vaccination; ongoing immunosuppression. Twelve of 19 patients (63%) without antibodies after the second dose did not show cellular responses. Nineteen percent of patients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection after the third dose, with favorable outcome in all cases. Patients within 12 months after allo-SCT showed a significantly higher infection risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that an interval shorter than 12 months between allo-SCT and first vaccine dose and/or ongoing immunosuppression were associated with humoral and cellular response deficiency after two doses. Third dose induced an increased and sustained humoral response in the majority of patients. However, patients within 1 year after allo-SCT remained at higher infection risk and may be candidate for prophylaxis with anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies.

Using Metaphors to Understand Suffering in COVID-19 Survivors: A Two Time-Point Observational Follow-Up Study.

Accumulating evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic carries risks to psychological health and represents a collective traumatic experience with consequences at the social, economic, and health levels. The primary aim of this study was to collect ongoing COVID-19 survivors' pandemic-related experiences as expressed through the use of metaphors; the secondary aim was to explore socio-demographic variables associated with the metaphor orientation as negative, positive or neutral. An observational follow-up survey was conducted and reported according to the STROBE guidelines. Patients ≥ 18 years, who were treated for COVID-19 during the first wave (March/April 2020) and who were willing to participate in a telephone interview were involved and asked to summarize their COVID-19 experience as lived up to 6 and 12 months in a metaphor. A total of 339 patients participated in the first (6 months) and second (12 months) data collection. Patients were mainly female (51.9%), with an average age of 52.9 years (confidence interval, CI 95% 51.2−54.6). At 6 months, most participants (214; 63.1%) used a negative-oriented metaphor, further increasing at 12 months (266; 78.5%), when they used fewer neutral-/positive-oriented metaphors (p < 0.001). At the 6-month follow-up, only three individual variables (female gender, education, and experiencing symptoms at the COVID-19 onset) were significantly different across the possible metaphor orientation; at 12 months, no individual variables were significantly associated. This study suggests increasingly negative lived experiences over time and the need for personalized healthcare pathways to face the long-term traumatic consequences of COVID-19.

Ventilatory associated barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: A multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-study).

BACKGROUND: The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence; we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients; these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma; otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).

Exploratory data on the clinical efficacy of monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern.

Background: Recent in-vitro data have shown that the activity of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) varies according to the variant of concern (VOC). No studies have compared the clinical efficacy of different mAbs against Omicron VOC. Methods: The MANTICO trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical efficacy of early treatments with bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, and sotrovimab in outpatients aged 50 or older with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. As the patient enrolment was interrupted for possible futility after the onset of the Omicron wave, the analysis was performed according to the SARS-CoV-2 VOC. The primary outcome was coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression (hospitalisation, need of supplemental oxygen therapy, or death through day 14). Secondary outcomes included the time to symptom resolution, assessed using the product-limit method. Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard model were used to assess the association with predictors. Log rank test was used to compare survival functions. Results: Overall, 319 patients were included. Among 141 patients infected with Delta, no COVID-19 progression was recorded, and the time to symptom resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups (Log-rank Chi-square 0.22, p 0.90). Among 170 patients infected with Omicron (80.6% BA.1 and 19.4% BA.1.1), two COVID-19 progressions were recorded, both in the bamlanivimab/etesevimab group, and the median time to symptom resolution was 5 days shorter in the sotrovimab group compared with the bamlanivimab/etesevimab and casirivimab/imdevimab groups (HR 0.53 and HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.77 and 95% CI 0.30-0.67, p<0.01). Conclusions: Our data suggest that, among adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection due to Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1, early treatment with sotrovimab reduces the time to recovery compared with casirivimab/imdevimab and bamlanivimab/etesevimab. In the same population, early treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab may maintain a role in preventing COVID-19 progression. The generalisability of trial results is substantially limited by the early discontinuation of the trial and firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Funding: This trial was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, AIFA). The VOC identification was funded by the ORCHESTRA (Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic) project, which has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 101016167. Clinical trial number: NCT05205759.

Early 3-day course of remdesivir to prevent progression to severe Covid-19 in high-risk patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection: preliminary results from two Italian outbreaks.

In multimorbid, unvaccinated and non-hospitalized patients, early administration of remdesivir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir was effective in reducing the risk of hospitalization or death from any cause. Similar data are lacking with regard to patients already hospitalized and who acquire in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 infection. We conducted a retrospective study during two outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections involving 90 inpatients already hospitalized for medical or surgical conditions, in order to assess the effectiveness of early administration of remdesivir. Forty-seven cases were treated with a 3-day course of remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) within a median time of 1.4 day from testing positive, and were compared to a matched case-control cohort of 43 untreated patients; matching was based on age, sex, vaccination status, previous symptomatic infections by SARS-CoV-2, reasons for hospitalization (no significant differences). No case presented adverse events to remdesivir or death from COVID-19. No significant difference in overall in-hospital mortality was observed in cases compared to controls (17% vs 16.3%, p=0.925), but progression to severe pneumonia, although the difference was still not significant, showed an evident trend of a better outcome (8.5% vs 16.3%, p=0.261). Moreover, cases had a median discharge delay of 3 days (p=0.008).

VENTILATORY ASSOCIATED BAROTRAUMA IN COVID-19 PATIENTS: A MULTICENTER OBSERVATIONAL CASE CONTROL STUDY (COVI-MIX-STUDY)

Background The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence;we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. Methods This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. Results We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients;these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). Conclusions C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma;otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. Trial registration this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).

Effect of heparin treatment on pulmonary embolism and in-hospital death in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) without overt deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was common in hospitalized coronavirus-induced disease (COVID)-19 patients and represented a diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic challenge. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic role of PE on mortality and the preventive effect of heparin on PE and mortality in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt DVT. METHODS: Data from 401 unvaccinated patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 33% females) consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit or the medical ward were included in a retrospective longitudinal study. PE was documented by computed tomography scan and DVT by compressive venous ultrasound. The effect of PE diagnosis and any heparin use on in-hospital death (primary outcome) was analyzed by a classical survival model. The preventive effect of heparin on either PE diagnosis or in-hospital death (secondary outcome) was analyzed by a multi-state model after having reclassified patients who started heparin after PE diagnosis as not treated. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 8 days (range 1-40 days). PE cumulative incidence and in-hospital mortality were 27% and 20%, respectively. PE was predicted by increased D-dimer levels and COVID-19 severity. Independent predictors of in-hospital death were age (hazards ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.08, p < 0.001), body mass index (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, p = 0.004), COVID-19 severity (severe versus mild/moderate HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30-10.4, p = 0.014, critical versus mild/moderate HR 12.1, 95% CI 4.57-32.2, p < 0.001), active neoplasia (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.48-4.50, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.15-5.27, p = 0.020), respiratory rate (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.11, p = 0.008), heart rate (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p < 0.001), and any heparin treatment (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67, p = 0.001). In the multi-state model, preventive heparin at prophylactic or intermediate/therapeutic dose, compared with no treatment, reduced PE risk and in-hospital death, but it did not influence mortality of patients with a PE diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: PE was common during the first waves pandemic in unvaccinated patients, but it was not a negative prognostic factor for in-hospital death. Heparin treatment at any dose prevented mortality independently of PE diagnosis, D-dimer levels, and disease severity.

Evaluation of qualitative and semi-quantitative cut offs for rapid diagnostic lateral flow test in relation to serology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: findings of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information to compare the qualitative and semi-quantitative performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and serology for the assessment of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therefore, the objective of the study was (a) to compare the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection between RDT and laboratory serology, trying to identify appropriate semi-quantitative cut-offs for RDT in relation with quantitative serology values and to (b) evaluate diagnostic accuracy of RDT compared to the NAAT gold standard in an unselected adult population. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were simultaneously measured with lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA), the Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (by capillary blood), the iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) (by venous blood) and the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) in samples from in- and out-patients with confirmed, suspected and negative diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) attending Udine Hospital (Italy) (March-May 2020). Interpretation of RDT was qualitative (positive/negative) and semi-quantitative based on a chromatographic intensity scale (negative, weak positive, positive). RESULTS: Overall, 720 paired antibody measures were performed on 858 patients. The qualitative and semiquantitative agreement analysis performed in the whole sample between LFA and CLIA provided a Kendall's tau of 0.578 (p < 0.001) and of 0.623 (p < 0.001), respectively, for IgM and IgG. In patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, accordance between LFA and CLIA was maintained as a function of time from the onset of COVID-19 disease and the severity of disease both for qualitative and semi-quantitative assessments. RDT compared to the NAAT gold standard in 858 patients showed 78.5% sensitivity (95% CI 75.1%-81.7%) and 94.1% specificity (95% CI 90.4%-96.8%), with variable accordance depending on the timing from symptom onset. CONCLUSION: The RDT used in our study can be a non-invasive and reliable alternative to serological tests and facilitate both qualitative and a semi-quantitative antibody detection in COVID-19.

What Kind of Interventions Were Perceived as Effective Against Coronavirus-19 in Nursing Homes in Italy? A Descriptive Qualitative Study.

Purpose: To identify interventions implemented during the first, second and third waves of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Italian Nursing Homes (NHs). Patients and Methods: A descriptive qualitative design according to COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative (COREQ) guideline. A purposeful sample of five public NHs, located in the north-east of Italy, equipped with from 60 to 151 beds, participated. Six nurse managers, four clinical nurses and one NH director were interviewed in depth at the end of 2021. These interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A qualitative content analysis was performed to identify effective interventions as perceived by participants to protect facilities and residents from the pandemic. Results: Three main sets of interventions have been applied, at the environmental, nurse staff and at the resident levels. Some have been enacted in all facilities, others in a few but in a homogeneous fashion, while other interventions have been implemented in some NHs also in contrast with available national or local recommendations. Conclusion: Despite their documented frailty and precarious system, NHs implemented several interventions to protect their residents from the COVID-19. All interventions have been designed and implemented during the event, suggesting the need to increase the NHs' preparedness to face future disasters. Regarding those interventions enacted in contrast to the recommendations or not homogeneously across NHs, future investigations are suggested to assess their actual effectiveness and accumulate evidence for the future.

Population Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Dalbavancin for Long-Term Treatment of Subacute and/or Chronic Infectious Diseases: The Major Role of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

A population pharmacokinetic analysis of dalbavancin was conducted in patients with different infection sites. Non-linear mixed effect modeling was used for pharmacokinetic analysis and covariate evaluation. Monte Carlo simulations assessed the probability of target attainment (PTA) of total dalbavancin concentration ≥ 8.04 mg/L over time (associated with ≥90% probability of optimal pharmacodynamic target attainment of fAUC24h/MIC > 111.1 against S. aureus) associated with a single or double dosage, one week apart, of 1000 or 1500 mg in patients with different classes of renal function. Sixty-nine patients with 289 concentrations were included. Most of them (53/69, 76.8%) had bone and joint infections. A two-compartment model adequately fitted dalbavancin concentration-time data. Creatinine clearance (CLCR) was the only covariate associated with dalbavancin clearance. Monte Carlo simulations showed that, in patients with severe renal dysfunction, the 1000 mg single or double one week apart dosage may ensure optimal PTAs of 2 and 5 weeks, respectively. In patients with preserved renal function, the 1500 mg single or double one-week apart dosage may ensure optimal PTAs of 2 and 4 to 6 weeks, respectively. Therapeutic drug monitoring should be considered mandatory for managing inter-individual variability and for supporting clinicians in long-term treatments of subacute and chronic infections.

Relationship between cytokine release and stress hyperglycemia in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection.

Introduction: Stress hyperglycemia is a frequent finding in patients with COVID-19 infection and could affect the outcome of disease. Cytokines released in response to infection could have adverse effects on insulin sensitivity and pancreatic beta-cell function. The aim of the study was to examine the relationships of stress hyperglycemia with cytokines and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: In a cross-sectional analysis of 150 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection who were included in the GIRA-COVID database, we identified patients with stress hyperglycemia by calculation of the Stress Hyperglycemia Ratio (SHR) and use of a cut-off of 1.14. Plasma levels of cytokines principally involved in COVID-19 infection-related cytokine storm were measured. Outcome variables were use of mechanical ventilation and death within 60 days from hospital admission. Results: Patients with SHR > 1.14 had significantly higher plasma insulin, HOMA-index, and levels of interleukin-10 (IL-10), interleukin-10/tumor necrosis factor-a ratio (IL-10/TNF-α), and CXC motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10) than patients with SHR ≤ 1.14. IL-10, IL-10/TNF-α ratio, CXCL10, and IFN-γ were significantly and directly related with SHR in univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models showed that IL-10, IL-10/TNF-α ratio, and CXCL10 were independently associated with SHR>1.14. In a multivariate logistic model, stress hyperglycemia predicted use of mechanical ventilation (OR 2.453; CI 1.078-6.012) and death (OR 2.281; CI 1.049-7.369) independently of diabetes and other major confounders. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, stress hyperglycemia is associated with worse clinical outcomes and is independently related to levels of cytokines that might impair glucose homeostasis.

Identification of COVID-19 patients at risk of hospital admission and mortality: a European multicentre retrospective analysis of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin.

BACKGROUND: Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is an inflammatory biomarker that improves the prognostic assessment of patients with sepsis, septic shock and organ failure. Previous studies of MR-proADM have primarily focussed on bacterial infections. A limited number of small and monocentric studies have examined MR-proADM as a prognostic factor in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, however there is need for multicenter validation. An evaluation of its utility in predicting need for hospitalisation in viral infections was also performed. METHODS: An observational retrospective analysis of 1861 patients, with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by RT-qPCR, from 10 hospitals across Europe was performed. Biomarkers, taken upon presentation to Emergency Departments (ED), clinical scores, patient demographics and outcomes were collected. Multiclass random forest classifier models were generated as well as calculation of area under the curve analysis. The primary endpoint was hospital admission with and without death. RESULTS: Patients suitable for safe discharge from Emergency Departments could be identified through an MR-proADM value of ≤ 1.02 nmol/L in combination with a CRP (C-Reactive Protein) of ≤ 20.2 mg/L and age ≤ 64, or in combination with a SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score < 2 if MR-proADM was ≤ 0.83 nmol/L regardless of age. Those at an increased risk of mortality could be identified upon presentation to secondary care with an MR-proADM value of > 0.85 nmol/L, in combination with a SOFA score ≥ 2 and LDH > 720 U/L, or in combination with a CRP > 29.26 mg/L and age ≤ 64, when MR-proADM was > 1.02 nmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: This international study suggests that for patients presenting to the ED with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, MR-proADM in combination with age and CRP or with the patient's SOFA score could identify patients at low risk where outpatient treatment may be safe.

Combining Deep Phenotyping of Serum Proteomics and Clinical Data via Machine Learning for COVID-19 Biomarker Discovery.

The persistence of long-term coronavirus-induced disease 2019 (COVID-19) sequelae demands better insights into its natural history. Therefore, it is crucial to discover the biomarkers of disease outcome to improve clinical practice. In this study, 160 COVID-19 patients were enrolled, of whom 80 had a "non-severe" and 80 had a "severe" outcome. Sera were analyzed by proximity extension assay (PEA) to assess 274 unique proteins associated with inflammation, cardiometabolic, and neurologic diseases. The main clinical and hematochemical data associated with disease outcome were grouped with serological data to form a dataset for the supervised machine learning techniques. We identified nine proteins (i.e., CD200R1, MCP1, MCP3, IL6, LTBP2, MATN3, TRANCE, α2-MRAP, and KIT) that contributed to the correct classification of COVID-19 disease severity when combined with relative neutrophil and lymphocyte counts. By analyzing PEA, clinical and hematochemical data with statistical methods that were able to handle many variables in the presence of a relatively small sample size, we identified nine potential serum biomarkers of a "severe" outcome. Most of these were confirmed by literature data. Importantly, we found three biomarkers associated with central nervous system pathologies and protective factors, which were downregulated in the most severe cases.

The impact of body composition on mortality of COVID-19 hospitalized patients: A prospective study on abdominal fat, obesity paradox and sarcopenia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Obesity has been described as a predisposing risk factor to severe forms of COVID-19, but conflicting results are emerging on its real impact on the mortality of COVID-19. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes and mortality among COVID-19 patients according to obesity, metabolic syndrome and adiposity distribution. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of all consecutive adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the Infectious Diseases Clinic at Udine Hospital, Italy, from January 2021 to February 2021. At admission, the study population was submitted to specific anthropometric, laboratory and bioimpedance analysis (BIA) measurements and divided into five groups according to: 1) BMI < or >30 kg/m2; 2) waist circumference (WC) < or >98 cm for women, < or >102 cm for men; 3) presence or absence of metabolic syndrome (MS); 4) visceral adipose tissue (VAT) distribution; and 5) presence or absence of sarcopenia (SP) both based on BIA. We then compared clinical outcomes (ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU length of stay, total hospital length of stay and mortality), immune and inflammatory makers and infectious and non-infectious acute complications within the five groups. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age of patients was 71 years (IQR 61-80) and 64.6% (126) were male. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (55.9%) and MS (55.4%). Overall mortality was 19.5%. Abdominal adiposity, measured both with WC and with BIA, and SP were significantly associated with need for increased ventilator support (p = 0.013 for WC; p = 0.037, 0.027 and 0.009 for VAT; p = 0.004 and 0.036 for FMI; and p = 0.051 for SP), but not with ICU admission (WC p = 0.627, VAT p = 0.153, FMI p = 0.519 and SP p = 0.938), length of stay (WC p = 0.345, VAT p = 0.650, FMI p = 0.159 and SP p = 0.992) and mortality (WC p = 0.277, VAT p = 0.533, FMI p = 0.957 and SP p = 0.211). Obesity and MS did not discriminate for the intensity of ventilatory outcome (p = 0.142 and p = 0.198, respectively), ICU admission (p = 0.802 and p = 0.947, respectively), length of stay (p = 0.471 and p = 0.768, respectively) and mortality (p = 0.495 and p = 0.268, respectively). We did not find significant differences in inflammatory markers and secondary complications within the five groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted with COVID-19, increased WC, visceral abdominal fat and SP are associated with higher need for ventilatory support. However, obesity, MS, SP and abdominal adiposity are not sensitive predictive factors for mortality.