Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Lancet Digit Health ; 5(2): e56, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2245699

COVID-19 , Humans , Multiomics
Infection ; 2023 Feb 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2230107


PURPOSE: We evaluated the host-response marker score "BV" and its components TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP in SARS-CoV-2 positive children, and estimated the potential impact on clinical decision-making. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed levels of TRAIL, IP-10, CRP, and the BV score, in children with suspected COVID-19. Classification of infectious etiology was performed by an expert panel. We used a 5-point-questionnaire to evaluate the intention to treat with antibiotics before and after receiving test results. RESULTS: We screened 111 children, of whom 6 (5.4%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. A total of 53 children were included for the exploratory analysis. Median age was 3.1 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.3-4.3), and 54.7% (n = 29) were girls. A viral and a bacterial biomarker pattern was found in 27/53 (50.9%) and 15/53 (28.3%), respectively. BV scores differed between COVID-19, children with other viral infections, and children with bacterial infections (medians 29.5 vs. 9 vs. 66; p = 0.0006). Similarly, median TRAIL levels were different (65.5 vs. 110 vs. 78; p = 0.037). We found no differences in IP-10 levels (555 vs. 504 vs. 285; p = 0.22). We found a concordance between physicians' "unlikely intention to treat" children with a viral test result in most cases (n = 19/24, 79.2%). When physicians expressed a "likely intention to treat" (n = 15), BV test revealed 5 bacterial, viral, and equivocal scores each. Antibiotics were withheld in three cases (20%). Overall, 27/42 (64%) of pediatricians appraised the BV test positively, and considered it helpful in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Host-response based categorization of infectious diseases might help to overcome diagnostic uncertainty, support clinical decision-making and reduce unnecessary antibiotic treatment.

Int J Infect Dis ; 122: 178-187, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1889494


BACKGROUND: Early prognostication of COVID-19 severity will potentially improve patient care. Biomarkers, such as TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), and C-reactive protein (CRP), might represent possible tools for point-of-care testing and severity prediction. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we analyzed serum levels of TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP in patients with COVID-19, compared them with control subjects, and investigated the association with disease severity. RESULTS: A total of 899 measurements were performed in 132 patients (mean age 64 years, 40.2% females). Among patients with COVID-19, TRAIL levels were lower (49.5 vs 87 pg/ml, P = 0.0142), whereas IP-10 and CRP showed higher levels (667.5 vs 127 pg/ml, P <0.001; 75.3 vs 1.6 mg/l, P <0.001) than healthy controls. TRAIL yielded an inverse correlation with length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and National Early Warning Score, and IP-10 showed a positive correlation with disease severity. Multivariable regression revealed that obesity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.434, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-29.38), CRP (aOR 1.014, 95% CI 1.002-1.027), and peak IP-10 (aOR 1.001, 95% CI 1.00-1.002) were independent predictors of in-ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a correlation between COVID-19 severity and TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP. Multivariable regression showed a role for IP-10 in predicting unfavourable outcomes, such as in-ICU mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:, NCT04655521.

C-Reactive Protein , COVID-19 , C-Reactive Protein/metabolism , COVID-19/diagnosis , Chemokine CXCL10 , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Interferon-gamma , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , TNF-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 606, 2020 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-718135


BACKGROUND: Infections due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and Influenza virus (FLU) are leading causes of hospitalization in young children. Yet, there is little data on factors associated with antibiotic use in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of all patients below 2 years of age hospitalized between 2014 and 2018. We compared children with RSV infection to children with FLU infection analyzing clinical characteristics and factors contributing to an increased rate of antimicrobial utilization. RESULTS: RSV infection was diagnosed in 476/573 (83.1%), FLU in 95/573 (16.6%), and RSV-FLU-co-infection in 2/573 (0.3%) patients. Median age was lower for RSV compared to FLU (4 vs. 12 months; p < 0.0001). Children with RSV had longer hospitalization (5 vs. 4 days; p = 0.0023) and needed oxygen more frequently (314/476 vs. 23/95; p < 0.0001) than FLU patients. There was no significant difference in the overall antibiotic utilization between RSV and FLU patients (136/476 vs. 21/95; p = 0.2107). Logistic regression analyses revealed that septic appearance on admission (odds ratio [OR] 8.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-54.1), acute otitis media (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.1-9.4), a longer oxygen therapy (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.13-1.74) and a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5-2.0) were significantly associated with antibiotic use in both groups, but not age or pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, the rate of antibiotic utilization was comparable between RSV and FLU patients, while for both groups distinct clinical presentation and a high CRP value were associated with higher antibiotic use.

Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/diagnosis , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Coinfection/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Hyperbaric Oxygenation , Infant , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/virology , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Odds Ratio , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/drug therapy , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
Ann Glob Health ; 86(1): 148, 2020 11 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-953350


Background: Liberal PCR testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is key to contain the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Combined multi-sample testing in pools instead of single tests might enhance laboratory capacity and reduce costs, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: The purpose of our study was to assess the value of a simple questionnaire to guide and further improve pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing. Methods: Pharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing were obtained from healthcare and police staff, hospital inpatients, and nursing home residents in the southwestern part of Germany. We designed a simple questionnaire, which included questions pertaining to a suggestive clinical symptomatology, recent travel history, and contact with confirmed cases to stratify an individual's pre-test probability of having contracted COVID-19. The questionnaire was adapted repeatedly in face of the unfolding pandemic in response to the evolving epidemiology and observed clinical symptomatology. Based on the response patterns, samples were either tested individually or in multi-sample pools. We compared the pool positivity rate and the number of total PCR tests required to obtain individual results between this questionnaire-based pooling strategy and randomly assembled pools. Findings: Between March 11 and July 5, 2020, we processed 25,978 samples using random pooling (n = 6,012; 23.1%) or questionnaire-based pooling (n = 19,966; 76.9%). The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 0.9% (n = 238). Pool positivity (14.6% vs. 1.2%) and individual SARS-CoV-2 prevalence (3.4% vs. 0.1%) were higher in the random pooling group than in the questionnaire group. The average number of PCR tests needed to obtain the individual result for one participant was 0.27 tests in the random pooling group, as compared to 0.09 in the questionnaire-based pooling group, leading to a laboratory capacity increase of 73% and 91%, respectively, as compared to single PCR testing. Conclusions: Strategies that combine pool testing with a questionnaire-based risk stratification can increase laboratory testing capacities for COVID-19 and might be important tools, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surveys and Questionnaires , Clinical Laboratory Services/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Laboratory Services/supply & distribution , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Pharynx/virology , Prevalence , Random Allocation , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Risk Factors