Mimics and chameleons of COVID-19: patient presentation and accuracy of triage during the first wave.

STUDY AIMS: To quantify mimics and chameleons of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of the triage protocol, and to describe the resulting groups of mimics and chameleons - including their presenting symptoms and final diagnoses. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study including all adult patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the emergency department of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland during the first wave of pandemic in spring 2020. Diagnostic accuracy of triage was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio. Triage to the group of suspected (+) and not suspected (-) COVID-19 was considered the index test, whereas a SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result was used as reference standard. Mimics were defined as false positives and chameleons as false negatives. RESULTS: Of 2898 patients included in the analysis, 191 were true positives, 895 were false positives (mimics), 9 were false negatives (chameleons) and 1803 were true negatives. This resulted in a sensitivity of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.98) and a specificity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.65-0.69) for standardised triage. Among mimics, the main categories of final diagnoses were other infections (n = 513, 57.3%), cardiovascular diseases (excluding cerebrovascular) (n = 125, 14%), and non-infectious diseases of the respiratory system (n = 84, 9.4%). Fever (n = 357, 39.9% vs n = 104, 54.5%), cough (n = 466, 52.1% vs n = 126 66%), and smell or taste dysfunction (n = 60, 6.7% vs n = 24, 12.6%) were less frequently observed in mimics than in COVID-19 patients. Eight of nine COVID-19 chameleons presented with either nonspecific complaints (weakness and/or fatigue) or gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSION: The quantitative assessment of COVID-19 mimics and chameleons showed a high prevalence of mimics. Clinical differentiation between true positives and false positives is not feasible due to largely overlapping symptoms. Prevalence of chameleons was very low.

Influence of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on plasma levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.

AIMS: Concern has been raised that treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers may increase the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which acts as the entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, and lead to an increased risk of death from SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to address this concern by evaluating the in vivo relationship of treatment with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) with circulating plasma concentrations of ACE2 in a large cohort of patients with established cardiovascular disease (n = 1864) or cardiovascular risk factors (n = 2144) but without a history of heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 was measured in 4008 patients (median age 68, 33% women, 31% on ACE-inhibitors, 31% on ARB) using the SOMAscan proteomic platform (SomaLogic Inc, Colorado, USA). Plasma concentration of ACE2 was comparable in 1250 patients on ACE inhibitors (mean 5.99) versus patients without ACE inhibitors (mean 5.98, P = 0.54). Similarly, plasma concentration of ACE2 was comparable in 1260 patients on ARB (mean 5.99) versus patients without ARB (mean 5.98, P = 0.50). Plasma concentration of ACE2 was comparable in 2474 patients on either ACE inhibitors or ARB (mean 5.99) versus patients without ACE inhibitors or ARB (mean 5.98, P = 0.31). Multivariable quantile regression model analysis confirmed the lack of association between treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARB and ACE2 concentrations. Body mass index showed the only positive association with ACE2 plasma concentration (effect 0.015, 95% confidence interval 0.002 to 0.028, P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors but without heart failure, ACE inhibitors and ARB were not associated with higher plasma concentrations of ACE2.

Comparison of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with COVID-19 and Other Respiratory Infections: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Previous studies have indicated an association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute kidney injury (AKI) but lacked a control group. The prospective observational COronaVIrus-surviVAl (COVIVA) study performed at the University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland consecutively enrolled patients with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. We compared patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with patients who tested negative but with an adjudicated diagnosis of a respiratory tract infection, including pneumonia. The primary outcome measure was death at 30 days, and the secondary outcomes were AKI incidence and a composite endpoint of death, intensive care treatment or rehospitalization at 30 days. Five hundred and seven patients were diagnosed with respiratory tract infections, and of those, 183 (36%) had a positive PCR swab test for SARS-CoV-2. The incidence of AKI was higher in patients with COVID-19 (30% versus 12%, p < 0.001), more severe (KDIGO stage 3, 22% versus 13%, p = 0.009) and more often required renal replacement therapy (4.4% versus 0.93%; p = 0.03). The risk of 30-day mortality and a composite endpoint was higher in patients with COVID-19-associated AKI (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) mortality 3.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-14.46, p = 0.036; composite endpoint aHR 1.84, 95% CI 1.02-3.31, p = 0.042). The mortality risk was attenuated when adjusting for disease severity (aHR 3.60, 95% CI 0.93-13.96, p = 0.062). AKI occurs more frequently and with a higher severity in patients with COVID-19 and is associated with worse outcomes.

Cyclophilin inhibitors restrict Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus via interferon-λ in vitro and in mice.

While severe coronavirus infections, including Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), cause lung injury with high mortality rates, protective treatment strategies are not approved for clinical use.We elucidated the molecular mechanisms by which the cyclophilin inhibitors cyclosporin A (CsA) and alisporivir (ALV) restrict MERS-CoV to validate their suitability as readily available therapy in MERS-CoV infection.Calu-3 cells and primary human alveolar epithelial cells (hAECs) were infected with MERS-CoV and treated with CsA or ALV or inhibitors targeting cyclophilin inhibitor-regulated molecules including calcineurin, nuclear factor of activated T-cells (NFATs) or mitogen-activated protein kinases. Novel CsA-induced pathways were identified by RNA sequencing and manipulated by gene knockdown or neutralising antibodies. Viral replication was quantified by quantitative real-time PCR and 50% tissue culture infective dose. Data were validated in a murine MERS-CoV infection model.Both CsA and ALV reduced MERS-CoV titres and viral RNA replication in Calu-3 cells and hAECs, improving epithelial integrity. While neither calcineurin nor NFAT inhibition reduced MERS-CoV propagation, blockade of c-Jun N-terminal kinase diminished infectious viral particle release but not RNA accumulation. Importantly, CsA induced interferon regulatory factor 1 (IRF1), a pronounced type III interferon (IFNλ) response and expression of antiviral genes. Downregulation of IRF1 or IFNλ increased MERS-CoV propagation in the presence of CsA. Importantly, oral application of CsA reduced MERS-CoV replication in vivo, correlating with elevated lung IFNλ levels and improved outcome.We provide evidence that cyclophilin inhibitors efficiently decrease MERS-CoV replication in vitro and in vivo via upregulation of inflammatory antiviral cell responses, in particular IFNλ. CsA might therefore represent a promising candidate for treating MERS-CoV infection.