Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
iScience ; 24(7): 102752, 2021 Jul 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275407

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is a respiratory tract infection that can affect multiple organ systems. Predicting the severity and clinical outcome of individual patients is a major unmet clinical need that remains challenging due to intra- and inter-patient variability. Here, we longitudinally profiled and integrated more than 150 clinical, laboratory, and immunological parameters of 173 patients with mild to fatal COVID-19. Using systems biology, we detected progressive dysregulation of multiple parameters indicative of organ damage that correlated with disease severity, particularly affecting kidneys, hepatobiliary system, and immune landscape. By performing unsupervised clustering and trajectory analysis, we identified T and B cell depletion as early indicators of a complicated disease course. In addition, markers of hepatobiliary damage emerged as robust predictor of lethal outcome in critically ill patients. This allowed us to propose a novel clinical COVID-19 SeveriTy (COST) score that distinguishes complicated disease trajectories and predicts lethal outcome in critically ill patients.

2.
J Clin Med ; 10(11)2021 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1244046

ABSTRACT

In this study, we directly compared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients hospitalized during the first (27 February-28 July 2020) and second (29 July-31 December 2020) wave of the pandemic at a large tertiary center in northern Germany. Patients who presented during the first (n = 174) and second (n = 331) wave did not differ in age (median [IQR], 59 years [46, 71] vs. 58 years [42, 73]; p = 0.82) or age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (median [IQR], 2 [1, 4] vs. 2 [0, 4]; p = 0.50). During the second wave, a higher proportion of patients were treated as outpatients (11% [n = 20] vs. 20% [n = 67]), fewer patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (43% [n = 75] vs. 29% [n = 96]), and duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter (median days [IQR], 14 [8, 34] vs. 11 [5, 19]; p < 0.001). However, in-hospital mortality was high throughout the pandemic and did not differ between the two periods (16% [n = 27] vs. 16% [n = 54]; p = 0.89). While novel treatment strategies and increased knowledge about the clinical management of COVID-19 may have resulted in a less severe disease course in some patients, in-hospital mortality remained unaltered at a high level. These findings highlight the unabated need for efforts to hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, to increase vaccination coverage, and to develop novel treatment strategies to prevent mortality and decrease morbidity.

3.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 5803, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132102

ABSTRACT

While several studies have described the clinical course of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), direct comparisons with patients with seasonal influenza are scarce. We compared 166 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between February 27 and June 14, 2020, and 255 patients with seasonal influenza diagnosed during the 2017-18 season at the same hospital to describe common features and differences in clinical characteristics and course of disease. Patients with COVID-19 were younger (median age [IQR], 59 [45-71] vs 66 [52-77]; P < 0001) and had fewer comorbidities at baseline with a lower mean overall age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [SD], 3.0 [2.6] vs 4.0 [2.7]; P < 0.001) than patients with seasonal influenza. COVID-19 patients had a longer duration of hospitalization (mean [SD], 25.9 days [26.6 days] vs 17.2 days [21.0 days]; P = 0.002), a more frequent need for oxygen therapy (101 [60.8%] vs 103 [40.4%]; P < 0.001) and invasive ventilation (52 [31.3%] vs 32 [12.5%]; P < 0.001) and were more frequently admitted to the intensive care unit (70 [42.2%] vs 51 [20.0%]; P < 0.001) than seasonal influenza patients. Among immunocompromised patients, those in the COVID-19 group had a higher hospital mortality compared to those in the seasonal influenza group (13 [33.3%] vs 8 [11.6%], P = 0.01). In conclusion, we show that COVID-19 patients were younger and had fewer baseline comorbidities than seasonal influenza patients but were at increased risk for severe illness. The high mortality observed in immunocompromised COVID-19 patients emphasizes the importance of protecting these patient groups from SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Aged , Comorbidity , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Clin Virol ; 137: 104782, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1116968

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics is facing material shortages and long turnaround times due to exponential increase of testing demand. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the analytic performance and handling of four rapid Antigen Point of Care Tests (AgPOCTs) I-IV (Distributors: (I) Roche, (II) Abbott, (III) MEDsan and (IV) Siemens). METHODS: 100 RT-PCR negative and 84 RT-PCR positive oropharyngeal swabs were prospectively collected and used to determine performance and accuracy of these AgPOCTs. Handling was evaluated by 10 healthcare workers/users through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The median duration from symptom onset to sampling was 6 days (IQR 2-12 days). The overall respective sensitivity were 49.4 % (CI95 %: 38.9-59.9), 44.6 % (CI95 %: 34.3-55.3), 45.8 % (CI95 %: 35.5-56.5) and 54.9 % (CI95 %: 43.4-65.9) for tests I, II, III and IV, respectively. In the high viral load subgroup (containing >106 copies of SARS-CoV-2 /swab, n = 26), AgPOCTs reached sensitivities of 92.3 % or more (range 92.3 %-100 %). Specificity was 100 % for tests I, II (CI95 %: 96.3-100 for both tests) and IV (CI95 %: 96.3-100) and 97 % (CI95 %: 91.5-98.9) for test III. Regarding handling, test I obtained the overall highest scores, while test II was considered to have the most convenient components. Of note, users considered all assays, with the exception of test I, to pose a significant risk for contamination by drips or spills. DISCUSSION: Besides some differences in sensitivity and handling, all four AgPOCTs showed acceptable performance in high viral load samples. However, due to the significantly lower sensitivity compared to RT-qPCR, a careful consideration of pro and cons of AgPOCT has to be taken into account before clinical implementation.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods , Specimen Handling/methods , Viral Load
5.
J Clin Virol ; 128: 104390, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-133461

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presents a unique challenge for diagnostic laboratories around the world. Automation of workflows in molecular diagnostics is instrumental for coping with the large number of tests ordered by clinicians, as well as providing fast-tracked rapid testing for highly urgent cases. In this study we evaluated a SARS-CoV-2 LDT for the NeuMoDx 96 system, a fully automated device performing extraction and real-time PCR. METHODS: A publicly available SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay was adapted for the automated system. Analytical performance was evaluated using in-vitro transcribed RNA and clinical performance was compared to the cobas 6800-based reference assay within the lab. RESULTS: The Envelope (E) Gene-LDT displayed good analytical performance with an LoD of 95.55 cp/mL and no false positives during evaluation of cross-reactivity. A total of 176 patient samples were tested with both the E-Gene-LDT and the reference assay. Positive and negative agreement were 100 % and 99.2 % respectively. Invalid-rate was 6.3 %. CONCLUSION: The E-Gene-LDT showed analytical and clinical performance comparable to the cobas6800-based reference assay. Due to its random-access workflow concept and rapid time-to-result of about 80 min, the system is very well suited for providing fast-tracked SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics for urgent clinical samples in the hospital setting.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Pandemics , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/instrumentation , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Hospitals , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Workflow
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL