External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis. METHODS: Patients were classified in phenotypes A, B or C according to the severity of oxygenation impairment, inflammatory response, hemodynamic and laboratory tests according to the FEN-COVID-19 method. RESULTS: Overall, 992 patients were included in the study, and 181 (18%), 757 (76%) and 54 (6%) of them were assigned to the FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes A, B, and C, respectively. An association with mortality was observed for phenotype C vs. A (hazard ratio [HR] 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81-5.30, p < 0.001) and for phenotype C vs. B (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.50-3.23, p < 0.001). A non-statistically significant trend towards higher mortality was also observed for phenotype B vs. A (HR 1.41; 95% CI 0.92-2.15, p = 0.115). By means of cluster analysis, three different phenotypes were also identified in our cohort, with an overall similar gradient in terms of prognostic impact to that observed when patients were assigned to FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic impact of FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes was confirmed in our external cohort, although with less difference in mortality between phenotypes A and B than in the original study.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory featuresIn this study, we externally confirmed the prognostic impact of clinical phenotypes previously identified by Gutierrez-Gutierrez and colleagues in a Spanish cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the usefulness of their simplified probabilistic model for phenotypes assignmentThis could indirectly support the validity of both phenotype's development and their extrapolation to other hospitals and countries for management decisions during other possible future viral pandemics.

Rapid differential diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial viruses: Validation of a novel RT-PCR assay.

BACKGROUND: Influenza and respiratory syncytial (RSV) viruses are expected to co-circulate with SARS-CoV-2 in the upcoming seasons and clinical differential diagnosis between them is difficult. Laboratory-based RT-PCR is a gold standard diagnostic method for influenza, RSV and SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to estimate the diagnostic performance of a novel point-of-care RT-PCR assay STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 (SD Biosensor) in a large number of clinical specimens with diversified (co)-infection patterns and viral loads. METHODS: This was a retrospective study, in which all samples were tested in both STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 index and Allplex SARS-CoV-2/Respiratory Panel 1 (Seegene) reference kits. Samples with discordant results were further processed in a third resolver test (Resp-4-Plex, Abbott). RESULTS: A total of 1,019 naso-/oropharyngeal samples (50.3% positive for at least one virus) were processed in both STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 and Allplex assays and the overall between-assay agreement was as high as 94.6%. Positive percent agreement of the STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 was 100%, 96.6%, 97.3% and 99.4% for influenza A, B, RSV and SARS-CoV-2, respectively. The corresponding negative percent agreement was 99.7%. 100%, 100% and 98.4%, respectively. The expected positive and negative predictive values for all viruses were constantly above 96% in a reasonable range of disease prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: STANDARD M10 Flu/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 is a reliable RT-PCR assay able to detect influenza A, influenza B, RSV and SARS-CoV-2 in one hour or less, fostering a rapid differential diagnosis of common respiratory viruses.

Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD M10 Assay for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the Point-of-Care and Critical Care Settings.

Accurate and rapid molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 is a crucial step to tackle the ongoing pandemic. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the real-world performance of the novel RT-PCR STANDARD M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay in a large number of nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens eluted in universal transport medium. The secondary objective was to evaluate the compatibility of this kit in testing NP samples eluted in an inactivated transport medium (essential for point-of-care testing) and lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens, which are commonly collected in critical care. A total of 591 samples were analyzed. Compared with the standard extraction-based RT-PCR Allplex 2019-nCoV (time-to-result of 270 min), the sensitivities of the STANDARD M10 were 100% (95% CI: 98.1-100%), 95.5% (95% CI: 91.7-97.6%), and 99.5% (95% CI: 97.2-99.9%) for ≥1 gene, the ORF1ab gene, and the E gene, respectively, while the specificity was 100% (95% CI: 98.7-100%). The diagnostic accuracy was 100% in testing both NP samples eluted in an inactivated transport medium and LRT specimens. STANDARD M10 reliably detects SARS-CoV-2 in 60 min, may be used as a POC tool, and is suitable for testing LRT specimens in the critical care setting.

COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza Vaccination: Cross-Protection, Co-Administration, Combination Vaccines, and Hesitancy.

SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are the main respiratory viruses for which effective vaccines are currently available. Strategies in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are administered simultaneously or combined into a single preparation are advantageous and may increase vaccination uptake. Here, we comprehensively review the available evidence on COVID-19/influenza vaccine co-administration and combination vaccine candidates from the standpoints of safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, policy and public acceptance. While several observational studies have shown that the trained immunity induced by influenza vaccines can protect against some COVID-19-related endpoints, it is not yet understood whether co-administration or combination vaccines can exert additive effects on relevant outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, co-administration has proved safe, with a reactogenicity profile similar to that of either vaccine administered alone. From the immunogenicity standpoint, the immune response towards four influenza strains and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in co-administration groups is generally non-inferior to that seen in groups receiving either vaccine alone. Several public health authorities have advocated co-administration. Different combination vaccine candidates are in (pre)-clinical development. The hesitancy towards vaccine co-administration or combination vaccines is a multifaceted phenomenon and may be higher than the acceptance of either vaccine administered separately. Public health implications are discussed.