Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-310899

ABSTRACT

Background: In a recent study, autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) were present in at least 10% of cases of critical COVID-19 pneumonia. These autoantibodies neutralized most type I IFNs but rarely IFN-beta. Objectives: We aimed to define the prevalence of autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFN in a cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with IFN-beta-1b during hospitalization and to analyze their impact on various clinical variables and outcomes. Methods: We analyzed stored serum/plasma samples and clinical data of COVID-19 patients treated subcutaneously with IFN-beta-1b from March to May 2020, at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. Results: The cohort comprised 47 COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, 16 of whom (34%) had a critical progression requiring ICU admission. The median age was 71 years, with 28 men (58.6%). Type I IFN-alpha- and omega-neutralizing autoantibodies were found in 5 of 47 patients with severe pneumonia or critical disease (10.6%). The autoantibodies did not neutralize IFN-beta. No demographic, comorbidity, or clinical differences were seen between individuals with or without autoantibodies. We found a significant correlation between the presence of neutralizing autoantibodies and higher C-reactive protein levels (p=5.10e -03 ) and lower lymphocyte counts (p=1.80e -02 ). Survival analysis suggested that neutralizing autoantibodies may increase the risk of death (4/5, 80% vs 12/42, 28.5%). Conclusion: Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFN underlie severe/critical COVID-19 stages in at least 10% of cases, correlate with increased C-RP and lower lymphocyte counts, and confer a trend towards increased risk of death. Subcutaneous IFN-beta treatment of hospitalized patients did not seem to improve clinical outcome. Studies of earlier, ambulatory IFN-beta treatment are warranted.

4.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 11(1): 676-688, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672036

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have a crucial role in regulating immune response against infectious diseases, showing changes early in disease onset and before the detection of the pathogen. Thus, we aimed to analyze the plasma miRNA profile at COVID-19 onset to identify miRNAs as early prognostic biomarkers of severity and survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma miRNome of 96 COVID-19 patients that developed asymptomatic/mild, moderate and severe disease was sequenced together with a group of healthy controls. Plasma immune-related biomarkers were also assessed. COVID-19 patients showed 200 significant differentially expressed (SDE) miRNAs concerning healthy controls, with upregulated putative targets of SARS-CoV-2, and inflammatory miRNAs. Among COVID-19 patients, 75 SDE miRNAs were observed in asymptomatic/mild compared to symptomatic patients, which were involved in platelet aggregation and cytokine pathways, among others. Moreover, 137 SDE miRNAs were identified between severe and moderate patients, where miRNAs targeting the SARS CoV-2 genome were the most strongly disrupted. Finally, we constructed a mortality predictive risk score (miRNA-MRS) with ten miRNAs. Patients with higher values had a higher risk of 90-days mortality (hazard ratio = 4.60; p-value < 0.001). Besides, the discriminant power of miRNA-MRS was significantly higher than the observed for age and gender (AUROC = 0.970 vs. 0.881; p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection deeply disturbs the plasma miRNome from an early stage of COVID-19, making miRNAs highly valuable as early predictors of severity and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , MicroRNAs , Biomarkers , Humans , MicroRNAs/genetics , MicroRNAs/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Biomed Pharmacother ; 146: 112572, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1588216

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interferon-ß is an attractive drug for repurposing and use in the treatment of COVID-19, based on its in vitro antiviral activity and the encouraging results from clinical trials. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of early interferon-ß treatment in patients admitted with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a COVID-19@Spain multicenter cohort included 3808 consecutive adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 1 January to 17 March 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality, and the main exposure of interest was subcutaneous administration of interferon-ß, defined as early if started ≤ 3 days from admission. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify the associations of different variables with receiving early interferon-ß therapy and to assess its impact on 30-day mortality. A propensity score was calculated and used to both control for confounders and perform a matched cohort analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 683 patients (17.9%) received early interferon-ß therapy. These patients were more severely ill. Adjusted HR for mortality with early interferon-ß was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.82-1.30) in the overall cohort, 0.96 (0.82-1.13) in the PS-matched subcohort, and 0.89 (0.60-1.32) when interferon-ß treatment was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort of admitted COVID-19 patients, receiving early interferon-ß therapy after hospital admission did not show an association with lower mortality. Whether interferon-ß might be useful in the earlier stages of the disease or specific subgroups of patients requires further research.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , Interferon-beta/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Time-to-Treatment/trends , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous , Male , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Spain/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
6.
N Engl J Med ; 386(4): 305-315, 2022 01 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585665

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Comorbidity , Disease Progression , Double-Blind Method , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Time-to-Treatment , Viral Load
8.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S806-S807, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564252

ABSTRACT

Background Remdesivir (RDV) is a potent nucleotide prodrug inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19. This Phase 3 (GS-US-540–9012) double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the efficacy and safety of 3 days of RDV to standard of care in non-hospitalized, high-risk participants with confirmed COVID-19. Table 1. COVID-19 related hospitalization or death, COVID-19 related medically attended visits or death, and Treatment Emergent Adverse Events Methods Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous (IV) RDV (200 mg on day 1, 100 mg on days 2 to 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was composite COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 and compared using Cox proportional hazards model with baseline stratification factors as covariates. The primary safety endpoint was proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events. Study enrollment was terminated early for administrative reasons in light of the evolving pandemic. Results 562 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (279, RDV;283, placebo). Baseline demographics and characteristics were balanced across arms. Overall, 52% were male, 44% were Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and 30% were ≥ 60 years old. The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (62%), obesity (56%;median BMI, 30.7), and hypertension (48%). Median baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA nasopharyngeal viral load was 6.2 log10 copies/mL. Treatment with RDV significantly reduced COVID-19 hospitalization or all-cause death by day 28 (HR, 0.13;95% CI, 0.03 – 0.59;p = 0.008;Table 1) compared to placebo. Participants receiving RDV also had significantly lower risk for COVID-19-related medically attended visits or all-cause death by day 28 compared to placebo (HR, 0.19;95% CI, 0.07 – 0.56;p = 0.002;Table 1). No deaths occurred in either arm by day 28. There was no difference between arms in time-weighted average change in nasopharyngeal viral loads from baseline up to day 7. The proportion of patients with AEs was similar between arms (Table 1);the most common AEs in the RDV arm were nausea (11%), headache (6%), and diarrhea (4%). Conclusion A 3-day course of IV RDV was safe, well tolerated and highly effective at preventing COVID-19 related hospitalization or death in high-risk non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Disclosures Joshua A. Hill, MD, Allogene (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;Allovir (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support;Amplyx (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;Covance/CSL (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;CRISPR (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;Gilead (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support;Karius: Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator;Medscape (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;Octapharma (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;OptumHealth (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant;Takeda (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator Roger Paredes, MD, PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Carlos Vaca, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Jorge Mera, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Consultant, Study Investigator (payment to employer not self)) Gilberto Perez, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Godson Oguchi, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Pablo Ryan, MD PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member) Jan Gerstoft, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Other Financial or Material Support, Study Investigator (payment to employer)) Michael Brown, FRCP PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Scientific Research Study Inve tigator, Investigator for numerous remdesivir trials (employer received compensation)) Morgan Katz, MD, MHS, Roche (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member;Skinclique (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant Gregory Camus, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Danielle P. Porter, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, DPhil, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Employee during the conduct of this trial) Shuguang Chen, PhD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Kavita Juneja, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Frank Duff, MD, Gilead Sciences, Inc (Employee, Shareholder) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Eli Lilly (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Gilead Sciences (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Gift in kind to Baylor Scott and White Research Institute for NCT03383419)GSK (Advisor or Review Panel member)Johnson and Johnson (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kinevant (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Roche/Genentech (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

10.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 718053, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472390

ABSTRACT

Background: The link between coagulation system disorders and COVID-19 has not yet been fully elucidated. Aim: Evaluating the association of non-previously reported coagulation proteins with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Design: Cross-sectional study of 134 COVID-19 patients recruited at admission and classified according to the highest COVID-19 severity reached (asymptomatic/mild, moderate, or severe) and 16 healthy control individuals. Methods: Coagulation proteins levels (antithrombin, prothrombin, factor_XI, factor_XII, and factor_XIII) and CRP were measured in plasma by the ProcartaPlex Panel (Invitrogen) multiplex immunoassay upon diagnosis. Results: We found higher levels of antithrombin, prothrombin, factor XI, factor XII, and factor XIII in asymptomatic/mild and moderate COVID-19 patients compared to healthy individuals. Interestingly, decreased levels of antithrombin and factors XI, XII, and XIII were observed in those patients who eventually developed severe illness. Additionally, survival models showed us that patients with lower levels of these coagulation proteins had an increased risk of death. Conclusion: COVID-19 provokes early increments of some specific coagulation proteins in most patients. However, lower levels of these proteins at diagnosis might "paradoxically" imply a higher risk of progression to severe disease and COVID-19-related mortality.

11.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 736028, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438421

ABSTRACT

Background: Endothelial Activation and Stress Index (EASIX) predict death in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation who develop endothelial complications. Because coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients also have coagulopathy and endotheliitis, we aimed to assess whether EASIX predicts death within 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on COVID-19 patients from two different cohorts [derivation (n = 1,200 patients) and validation (n = 1,830 patients)]. The endpoint was death within 28 days. The main factors were EASIX [(lactate dehydrogenase * creatinine)/thrombocytes] and aEASIX-COVID (EASIX * age), which were log2-transformed for analysis. Results: Log2-EASIX and log2-aEASIX-COVID were independently associated with an increased risk of death in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Log2-aEASIX-COVID showed a good predictive performance for 28-day mortality both in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver-operating characteristic = 0.827) and in the validation cohort (area under the receiver-operating characteristic = 0.820), with better predictive performance than log2-EASIX (p < 0.001). For log2 aEASIX-COVID, patients with low/moderate risk (<6) had a 28-day mortality probability of 5.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 4-6.5%], high (6-7) of 17.2% (95% CI = 14.7-19.6%), and very high (>7) of 47.6% (95% CI = 44.2-50.9%). The cutoff of log2 aEASIX-COVID = 6 showed a positive predictive value of 31.7% and negative predictive value of 94.7%, and log2 aEASIX-COVID = 7 showed a positive predictive value of 47.6% and negative predictive value of 89.8%. Conclusion: Both EASIX and aEASIX-COVID were associated with death within 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, aEASIX-COVID had significantly better predictive performance than EASIX, particularly for discarding death. Thus, aEASIX-COVID could be a reliable predictor of death that could help to manage COVID-19 patients.

12.
J Clin Immunol ; 41(5): 914-922, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1293410

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a recent study, autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) were present in at least 10% of cases of critical COVID-19 pneumonia. These autoantibodies neutralized most type I IFNs but rarely IFN-beta. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to define the prevalence of autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFN in a cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with IFN-beta-1b during hospitalization and to analyze their impact on various clinical variables and outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed stored serum/plasma samples and clinical data of COVID-19 patients treated subcutaneously with IFN-beta-1b from March to May 2020, at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 47 COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, 16 of whom (34%) had a critical progression requiring ICU admission. The median age was 71 years, with 28 men (58.6%). Type I IFN-alpha- and omega-neutralizing autoantibodies were found in 5 of 47 patients with severe pneumonia or critical disease (10.6%), while they were not found in any of the 118 asymptomatic controls (p = 0.0016). The autoantibodies did not neutralize IFN-beta. No demographic, comorbidity, or clinical differences were seen between individuals with or without autoantibodies. We found a significant correlation between the presence of neutralizing autoantibodies and higher C-reactive protein levels (p = 5.10e-03) and lower lymphocyte counts (p = 1.80e-02). No significant association with response to IFN-beta-1b therapy (p = 0.34) was found. Survival analysis suggested that neutralizing autoantibodies may increase the risk of death (4/5, 80% vs 12/42, 28.5%). CONCLUSION: Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFN underlie severe/critical COVID-19 stages in at least 10% of cases, correlate with increased C-RP and lower lymphocyte counts, and confer a trend towards increased risk of death. Subcutaneous IFN-beta treatment of hospitalized patients did not seem to improve clinical outcome. Studies of earlier, ambulatory IFN-beta treatment are warranted.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
13.
Transl Res ; 236: 147-159, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1243239

ABSTRACT

We aimed to examine the circulating microRNA (miRNA) profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and evaluate its potential as a source of biomarkers for the management of the disease. This was an observational and multicenter study that included 84 patients with a positive nasopharyngeal swab Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 recruited during the first pandemic wave in Spain (March-June 2020). Patients were stratified according to disease severity: hospitalized patients admitted to the clinical wards without requiring critical care and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). An additional study was completed including ICU nonsurvivors and survivors. Plasma miRNA profiling was performed using reverse transcription polymerase quantitative chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Predictive models were constructed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. Ten circulating miRNAs were dysregulated in ICU patients compared to ward patients. LASSO analysis identified a signature of three miRNAs (miR-148a-3p, miR-451a and miR-486-5p) that distinguishes between ICU and ward patients [AUC (95% CI) = 0.89 (0.81-0.97)]. Among critically ill patients, six miRNAs were downregulated between nonsurvivors and survivors. A signature based on two miRNAs (miR-192-5p and miR-323a-3p) differentiated ICU nonsurvivors from survivors [AUC (95% CI) = 0.80 (0.64-0.96)]. The discriminatory potential of the signature was higher than that observed for laboratory parameters such as leukocyte counts, C-reactive protein (CRP) or D-dimer [maximum AUC (95% CI) for these variables = 0.73 (0.55-0.92)]. miRNA levels were correlated with the duration of ICU stay. Specific circulating miRNA profiles are associated with the severity of COVID-19. Plasma miRNA signatures emerge as a novel tool to assist in the early prediction of vital status deterioration among ICU patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/genetics , Circulating MicroRNA/blood , Hospitalization , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/virology , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
14.
J Clin Immunol ; 41(5): 914-922, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1182268

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a recent study, autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) were present in at least 10% of cases of critical COVID-19 pneumonia. These autoantibodies neutralized most type I IFNs but rarely IFN-beta. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to define the prevalence of autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFN in a cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with IFN-beta-1b during hospitalization and to analyze their impact on various clinical variables and outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed stored serum/plasma samples and clinical data of COVID-19 patients treated subcutaneously with IFN-beta-1b from March to May 2020, at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 47 COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, 16 of whom (34%) had a critical progression requiring ICU admission. The median age was 71 years, with 28 men (58.6%). Type I IFN-alpha- and omega-neutralizing autoantibodies were found in 5 of 47 patients with severe pneumonia or critical disease (10.6%), while they were not found in any of the 118 asymptomatic controls (p = 0.0016). The autoantibodies did not neutralize IFN-beta. No demographic, comorbidity, or clinical differences were seen between individuals with or without autoantibodies. We found a significant correlation between the presence of neutralizing autoantibodies and higher C-reactive protein levels (p = 5.10e-03) and lower lymphocyte counts (p = 1.80e-02). No significant association with response to IFN-beta-1b therapy (p = 0.34) was found. Survival analysis suggested that neutralizing autoantibodies may increase the risk of death (4/5, 80% vs 12/42, 28.5%). CONCLUSION: Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFN underlie severe/critical COVID-19 stages in at least 10% of cases, correlate with increased C-RP and lower lymphocyte counts, and confer a trend towards increased risk of death. Subcutaneous IFN-beta treatment of hospitalized patients did not seem to improve clinical outcome. Studies of earlier, ambulatory IFN-beta treatment are warranted.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Interferon Type I/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
15.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(6): 783-792, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1164687

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. METHODS: In this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. FINDINGS: Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)-phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2·5% (95% CI 1·4-4·3) for patients with phenotype A, 30·5% (28·5-32·6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60·7% (53·7-67·2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0·0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5·3% [95% CI 3·4-8·1] for phenotype A, 31·3% [28·5-34·2] for phenotype B, and 59·5% [48·8-69·3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3·7% [2·0-6·4] for phenotype A, 23·7% [21·8-25·7] for phenotype B, and 51·4% [41·9-60·7] for phenotype C). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three phenotypes that correlate with mortality. We developed and validated a simplified tool for the probabilistic assignment of patients into phenotypes. These results might help to better classify patients for clinical management, but the pathophysiological mechanisms of the phenotypes must be investigated. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Fundación SEIMC/GeSIDA.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , Hospitals , Phenotype , Aged , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain
16.
Thorax ; 76(9): 920-929, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1105535

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model of mortality in patients with COVID-19 attending hospital emergency rooms. DESIGN: Multivariable prognostic prediction model. SETTING: 127 Spanish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Derivation (DC) and external validation (VC) cohorts were obtained from multicentre and single-centre databases, including 4035 and 2126 patients with confirmed COVID-19, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Prognostic variables were identified using multivariable logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Patients' characteristics in the DC and VC were median age 70 and 61 years, male sex 61.0% and 47.9%, median time from onset of symptoms to admission 5 and 8 days, and 30-day mortality 26.6% and 15.5%, respectively. Age, low age-adjusted saturation of oxygen, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, dyspnoea and sex were the strongest predictors of mortality. Calibration and discrimination were satisfactory with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with a 95% CI for prediction of 30-day mortality of 0.822 (0.806-0.837) in the DC and 0.845 (0.819-0.870) in the VC. A simplified score system ranging from 0 to 30 to predict 30-day mortality was also developed. The risk was considered to be low with 0-2 points (0%-2.1%), moderate with 3-5 (4.7%-6.3%), high with 6-8 (10.6%-19.5%) and very high with 9-30 (27.7%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: A simple prediction score, based on readily available clinical and laboratory data, provides a useful tool to predict 30-day mortality probability with a high degree of accuracy among hospitalised patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , Dyspnea/etiology , Dyspnea/virology , Female , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Humans , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Neutrophils , Oxygen/blood , ROC Curve , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors
17.
Eur J Clin Invest ; 51(6): e13501, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1054522

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RT-qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma from COVID-19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease). METHODS: The presence/concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVID-19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RT-qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 detection kit, and RT-qPCR was performed using GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RT-qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RT-qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups (P < .001), by both ddPCR and RT-qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RT-qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia between groups, with ICU patients showing the highest (>85%). RT-qPCR was as useful as ddPCR to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in plasma.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , RNA, Viral/blood , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Aged , Ambulatory Care , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Patients' Rooms , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Severity of Illness Index
18.
Thromb Res ; 199: 132-142, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1014833

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Incidence of thrombotic events associated to Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is difficult to assess and reported rates differ significantly. Optimal thromboprophylaxis is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze the characteristics of patients with a confirmed thrombotic complication including inflammatory and hemostatic parameters, compare patients affected by arterial vs venous events and examine differences between survivors and non-survivors. We reviewed compliance with thromboprophylaxis and explored how the implementation of a severity-adjusted protocol could have influenced outcome. METHODS: Single-cohort retrospective study of COVID-19 patients admitted, from March 3 to May 3 2020, to the Infanta Leonor University Hospital in Madrid, epicenter of the Spanish outbreak. RESULTS: Among 1127 patients, 80 thrombotic events were diagnosed in 69 patients (6.1% of the entire cohort). Forty-three patients (62%) suffered venous thromboembolism, 18 (26%) arterial episodes and 6 (9%) concurrent venous and arterial thrombosis. Most patients (90%) with a confirmed thrombotic complication where under low-molecular-weight heparin treatment. Overt disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was rare. Initial ISTH DIC score and pre-event CRP were significantly higher among non-survivors. In multivariate analysis, arterial localization was an independent predictor of mortality (OR = 18, 95% CI: 2.4-142, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite quasi-universal thromboprophylaxis, COVID-19 lead to a myriad of arterial and venous thrombotic events. Considering the subgroup of patients with thrombotic episodes, arterial events appeared earlier in the course of disease and conferred very poor prognosis, and an ISTH DIC score ≥ 3 at presentation was identified as a potential predictor of mortality. Severity-adjusted thromboprophylaxis seemed to decrease the number of events and could have influenced mortality. Randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/etiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation/diagnosis , Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation/drug therapy , Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Thrombophilia/diagnosis , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Thrombophilia/etiology , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology
19.
BMJ Open ; 10(11): e042398, 2020 11 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-919176

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe demographic, clinical, radiological and laboratory characteristics, as well as outcomes, of patients admitted for COVID-19 in a secondary hospital. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective case series of sequentially hospitalised patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2, at Infanta Leonor University Hospital (ILUH) in Madrid, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: All patients attended at ILUH testing positive to reverse transcriptase-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs and diagnosed with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1549 COVID-19 cases were included (median age 69 years (IQR 55.0-81.0), 57.5% men). 78.2% had at least one underlying comorbidity, the most frequent was hypertension (55.8%). Most frequent symptoms at presentation were fever (75.3%), cough (65.7%) and dyspnoea (58.1%). 81 (5.8%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (median age 62 years (IQR 51-71); 74.1% men; median length of stay 9 days (IQR 5-19)) 82.7% of them needed invasive ventilation support. 1393 patients had an outcome at the end of the study period (case fatality ratio: 21.2% (296/1393)). The independent factors associated with fatality (OR; 95% CI): age (1.07; 1.06 to 1.09), male sex (2.86; 1.85 to 4.50), neurological disease (1.93; 1.19 to 3.13), chronic kidney disease (2.83; 1.40 to 5.71) and neoplasia (4.29; 2.40 to 7.67). The percentage of hospital beds occupied with COVID-19 almost doubled (702/361), with the number of patients in ICU quadrupling its capacity (32/8). Median length of stay was 9 days (IQR 6-14). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a European secondary hospital. Fatal outcomes were similar to those reported by hospitals with a higher level of complexity.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Cough/physiopathology , Dyspnea/physiopathology , Female , Fever/physiopathology , Hospitalization , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms , Nervous System Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/epidemiology , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors , Spain/epidemiology
20.
J Clin Med ; 9(10)2020 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-906429

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to build an easily applicable prognostic model based on routine clinical, radiological, and laboratory data available at admission, to predict mortality in coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19) hospitalized patients. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical information from 1968 patients admitted to a hospital. We built a predictive score based on a logistic regression model in which explicative variables were discretized using classification trees that facilitated the identification of the optimal sections in order to predict inpatient mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19. These sections were translated into a score indicating the probability of a patient's death, thus making the results easy to interpret. RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 1104 patients (56.4%) were male, and 325 (16.5%) died during hospitalization. Our final model identified nine key features: age, oxygen saturation, smoking, serum creatinine, lymphocytes, hemoglobin, platelets, C-reactive protein, and sodium at admission. The discrimination of the model was excellent in the training, validation, and test samples (AUC: 0.865, 0.808, and 0.883, respectively). We constructed a prognostic scale to determine the probability of death associated with each score. CONCLUSIONS: We designed an easily applicable predictive model for early identification of patients at high risk of death due to COVID-19 during hospitalization.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL