Medical and cardio-vascular emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: is there a collateral damage? A retrospective routine data analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this retrospective routine data analysis, we investigate the number of emergency department (ED) consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 in Germany compared to the previous year with a special focus on numbers of myocardial infarction and acute heart failure. METHODS: Aggregated case numbers for the two consecutive years 2019 and 2020 were obtained from 24 university hospitals and 9 non-university hospitals in Germany and assessed by age, gender, triage scores, disposition, care level and by ICD-10 codes including the tracer diagnoses myocardial infarction (I21) and heart failure (I50). RESULTS: A total of 2,216,627 ED consultations were analyzed, of which 1,178,470 occurred in 2019 and 1,038,157 in 2020. The median deviation in case numbers between 2019 and 2020 was - 14% [CI (- 11)-(- 16)]. After a marked drop in all cases in the first COVID-19 wave in spring 2020, case numbers normalized during the summer. Thereafter starting in calendar week 39 case numbers constantly declined until the end of the year 2020. The decline in case numbers predominantly concerned younger [- 16%; CI (- 13)-(- 19)], less urgent [- 18%; CI (- 12)-(- 22)] and non-admitted cases [- 17%; CI (- 13)-(- 20)] in particular during the second wave. During the entire observation period admissions for chest pain [- 13%; CI (- 21)-2], myocardial infarction [- 2%; CI (- 9)-11] and heart failure [- 2%; CI (- 10)-6] were less affected and remained comparable to the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: ED visits were noticeably reduced during both SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves in Germany but cardiovascular diagnoses were less affected and no refractory increase was noted. However, long-term effects cannot be ruled out and need to be analysed in future studies.

Course of disease and risk factors for hospitalization in outpatients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We analyzed symptoms and comorbidities as predictors of hospitalization in 710 outpatients in North-East Germany with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the first 3 days of infection, commonly reported symptoms were fatigue (71.8%), arthralgia/myalgia (56.8%), headache (55.1%), and dry cough (51.8%). Loss of smell (anosmia), loss of taste (ageusia), dyspnea, and productive cough were reported with an onset of 4 days. Anosmia or ageusia were reported by only 18% of the participants at day one, but up to 49% between days 7 and 9. Not all participants who reported ageusia also reported anosmia. Individuals suffering from ageusia without anosmia were at highest risk of hospitalization (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.5-18.1). They also experienced more commonly dyspnea and nausea (OR of 3.0, 2.9, respectively) suggesting pathophysiological connections between these symptoms. Other symptoms significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization were dyspnea, vomiting, and fever. Among basic parameters and comorbidities, age > 60 years, COPD, prior stroke, diabetes, kidney and cardiac diseases were also associated with increased risk of hospitalization. In conclusion, due to the delayed onset, ageusia and anosmia may be of limited use in differential diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. However, differentiation between ageusia and anosmia may be useful for evaluating risk for hospitalization.

Anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies causing VITT do not cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a severe adverse effect of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 COVID-19 vaccine (Vaxzevria) and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine, and it is associated with unusual thrombosis. VITT is caused by anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies activating platelets through their FcγRIIa receptors. Antibodies that activate platelets through FcγRIIa receptors have also been identified in patients with COVID-19. These findings raise concern that vaccination-induced antibodies against anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein cause thrombosis by cross-reacting with PF4. Immunogenic epitopes of PF4 and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were compared using in silico prediction tools and 3D modeling. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and PF4 share at least 1 similar epitope. Reactivity of purified anti-PF4 antibodies from patients with VITT was tested against recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. However, none of the affinity-purified anti-PF4 antibodies from 14 patients with VITT cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Sera from 222 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed patients with COVID-19 from 5 European centers were tested by PF4-heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and PF4-dependent platelet activation assays. We found anti-PF4 antibodies in sera from 19 (8.6%) of 222 patients with COVID-19. However, only 4 showed weak to moderate platelet activation in the presence of PF4, and none of those patients developed thrombotic complications. Among 10 (4.5%) of 222 patients who had COVID-19 with thrombosis, none showed PF4-dependent platelet-activating antibodies. In conclusion, antibodies against PF4 induced by vaccination do not cross-react with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, indicating that the intended vaccine-induced immune response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not the trigger of VITT. PF4-reactive antibodies found in patients with COVID-19 in this study were not associated with thrombotic complications.