RESUMO
Limited data exist assessing severity of disease in adults hospitalised with Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant infections, and to what extent patient-factors, including vaccination and pre-existing disease, affect variant-dependent disease severity. This prospective cohort study of all adults ([≥]18 years of age) hospitalised at acute care hospitals in Bristol, UK assessed disease severity using 3 different measures: FiO2 >28%, World Health Organization (WHO) outcome score >5, and hospital length of stay (LOS) >3 days following admission for Omicron or Delta variant infection. Independent of other variables, including vaccination, Omicron variant infection was associated with a statistically lower severity compared to Delta; risk reductions were 58%, 67%, and 16% for FiO2, WHO score, and LOS, respectively. Younger age and vaccination with two or three doses were also independently associated with lower COVID-19 severity. Despite lower severity relative to Delta, Omicron infection still resulted in substantial patient and public health burden following admission.
RESUMO
IntroductionDexamethasone has been shown to reduce mortality for patients hospitalised with acute COVID-19 pneumonia. However, a significant proportion of patients suffer persistent symptoms following COVID-19 and little is known about the longer-term impact of this intervention on symptom burden. MethodsPatients initially hospitalised with COVID-19 were prospectively recruited to an observational study (April-August 2020) with follow-up at 8 months (Dec 2020-April 2021) post-admission. A review of ongoing symptoms using a standardised systems-based proforma was performed alongside health-related quality of life assessment. In the UK, patients with COVID-19 (requiring oxygen) only received dexamethasone following the pre-print of the RECOVERY trial (June 2020), or as part of randomisation to that trial, allowing for a comparison between patients treated and not treated with dexamethasone. ResultsBetween April to August 2020, 198 patients were recruited to this observational study. 87 required oxygen and were followed up at 8-months, so were eligible for this analysis. Of these 39 received an inpatient course of dexamethasone (cases) and 48 did not (controls). The groups were well matched at baseline in terms of age, comorbidity and frailty score. Over two-thirds of patients reported at least 1 ongoing symptom at 8-month follow-up. Patients in the dexamethasone group reported fewer symptoms (n=73, 1.9 per patient) than the non-dexamethasone group (n=152, 3.2 per patient) (p = 0.01). ConclusionsIn conclusion, in this case-control observational study, patients who received oral dexamethasone for hospitalised COVID-19 were less likely to experience persistent symptoms at 8-month follow-up. These are reassuring results for physicians administering dexamethasone to this patient group.
RESUMO
Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are defined as any procedure releasing airborne particles <5 m in size from the respiratory tract. There remains uncertainty about which dental procedures constitute AGPs. We quantified the aerosol number concentration generated during a range of periodontal, oral surgery and orthodontic procedures using an aerodynamic particle sizer, which measures aerosol number concentrations and size distribution across the 0.5-20 m diameter size range. Measurements were conducted in an environment with a sufficiently low background to detect a patients cough, enabling confident identification of aerosol. Phantom head control experiments for each procedure were performed under the same conditions as a comparison. Where aerosol was detected during a patient procedure, we assessed whether the size distribution could be explained by the non-salivary contaminated instrument source in the respective phantom head control procedure using a two-sided unpaired t-test (comparing the mode widths (log({sigma})) and peak positions (DP,C)). The aerosol size distribution provided a robust fingerprint of aerosol emission from a source. 41 patients underwent fifteen different dental procedures. For nine procedures, no aerosol was detected above background. Where aerosol was detected, the percentage of procedure time that aerosol was observed above background ranged from 12.7% for ultrasonic scaling, to 42.9% for 3-in-1 air + water syringe. For ultrasonic scaling, 3-in-1 syringe use and surgical drilling, the aerosol size distribution matched the non-salivary contaminated instrument source, with no unexplained aerosol. High and slow speed drilling produced aerosol from patient procedures with different size distributions to those measured from the phantom head controls (mode widths log({sigma})) and peaks (DP,C), p< 0.002) and, therefore, may pose a greater risk of salivary contamination. This study provides evidence for sources of aerosol generation during common dental procedures, enabling more informed evaluation of risk and appropriate mitigation strategies.
RESUMO
There is widespread interest in the capacity for SARS-CoV-2 evolution in the face of selective pressures from host immunity, either naturally acquired post-exposure or from vaccine acquired immunity. Allied to this is the potential for long perm persistent infections within immune compromised individuals to allow a broader range of viral evolution in the face of sub-optimal immune driven selective pressure. Here we report on an immunocompromised individual who is hypogammaglobulinaemic and was persistently infected with SARS-CoV-2 for over 290 days, the longest persistent infection recorded in the literature to date. During this time, nine samples of viral nucleic acid were obtained and analysed by next-generation sequencing. Initially only a single mutation (L179I) was detected in the spike protein relative to the prototypic SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate, with no further changes identified at day 58. However, by day 155 the spike protein had acquired a further four amino acid changes, namely S255F, S477N, H655Y and D1620A and a two amino acid deletion ({Delta}H69/{Delta}V70). Infectious virus was cultured from a nasopharyngeal sample taken on day 155 and next-generation sequencing confirmed that the mutations in the virus mirrored those identified by sequencing of the corresponding swab sample. The isolated virus was susceptible to remdesivir in vitro, however a 17-day course of remdesivir started on day 213 had no effect on the viral RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value. On day 265 the patient was treated with the combination of casirivimab and imdevimab. The patient experienced progressive resolution of all symptoms over the next 8 weeks and by day 311 the virus was no longer detectable by RT-PCR. The {Delta}H69/{Delta}V70 deletion in the N-terminus of the spike protein which arose in our patient is also present in the B.1.1.7 variant of concern and has been associated with viral escape mutagenesis after treatment of another immunocompromised patient with convalescent plasma. Our data confirms the significance of this deletion in immunocompromised patients but illustrates it can arise independently of passive antibody transfer, suggesting the deletion may be an enabling mutation that compensates for distant changes in the spike protein that arise under selective pressure.
RESUMO
BackgroundRisk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 directly informs organisation of acute healthcare and PPE guidance. Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are widely used modes of oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19, with both considered as high risk aerosol generating procedures. However, there are limited high quality experimental data characterising aerosolisation during oxygen delivery and respiratory support. MethodsHealthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak, and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using oxygen and respiratory support systems. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were also recruited and had aerosol emissions measured during breathing, speaking, and coughing. FindingsIn healthy volunteers (n = 25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosols than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50L/m facemask leaks). HFNO did emit aerosols, but the majority of these particles were generated from the HFNO machine, not the patient. HFNO-generated particles were small (<1m), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, thereby unlikely to carry viral particles. Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions with a peak concentration at least 10 times greater the mean concentration generated from speaking or breathing. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (n = 8 subjects; 56 measures) had similar size distributions to healthy volunteers. InterpretationIn healthy volunteers, CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to generate significant aerosols in a size range compatible with airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. As a consequence, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosolisation is likely to be high in all areas where patients with Covid-19 are coughing. Guidance on personal protective equipment policy should reflect these updated risks. FundingNIHR-UKRI Rapid COVID call (COV003), Wellcome Trust GW4-CAT Doctoral Training Scheme (FH), MRC CARP Fellowship(JD, MR/T005114/1). Natural Environment Research Council grant (BB, NE/P018459/1) Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSPubMed was searched from inception until 10/1/21 using the terms aerosol, and variations of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Studies were included if they measured aerosol generated from volunteers or patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) or high flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO), or provided experimental evidence on a simulated human setting. One study was identified (Gaeckle et al, 2020) which measured aerosol emission with one methodology (APS) but was limited by high background concentration of aerosol and a low number of participants (n = 10). Added value of this studyThis study used multiple methodologies to measure aerosol emission from the respiratory tract before and during CPAP and high-flow nasal oxygen, in an ultra-clean, laminar flow theatre with near-zero background aerosol and recruited patients with COVID-19 to ensure similar aerosol distributions. We conclude that there is negligible aerosol generation with CPAP, that aerosol emission from HFNO is from the machine and not the patient, coughing emits aerosols consistent with airborne transmission of SARS CoV2 and that healthy volunteers are a reasonable proxy for COVID-19 patients. Implications of all the available evidenceCPAP and HFNO should not be considered high risk aerosol generating procedures, based on our study and that of Gaeckle et al. Recorded aerosol emission from HFNO stems from the machine. Cough remains a significant aerosol risk. PPE guidance should be updated to ensure medical staff are protected with appropriate PPE in situations when patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 are likely to cough.
RESUMO
ObjectivesTo assess the performance (sensitivity and specificity) of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay across three clinical settings. MethodsAntibody testing was performed on three clinical cohorts of COVID-19 disease: hospitalised patients with PCR confirmation, hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis but negative PCR, and symptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs). Pre-pandemic respiratory infection sera were tested as negative controls. The sensitivity of the assay was calculated at different time points (<5 days, 5-9 days, 10-14 days, 15-19 days, >20 days, >42 days), and compared between cohorts. ResultsPerformance of the Abbot Architect SARS-CoV-2 assay varied significantly between cohorts. For PCR confirmed hospitalised patients (n = 114), early sensitivity was low: <5 days: 44.4% (95%CI: 18.9%-73.3%), 5-9 days: 32.6% (95%CI, 20.5%-47.5%), 10-14 days: 65.2% (95% CI 44.9%-81.2%), 15-20 days: 66.7% (95% CI: 39.1%-86.2%) but by day 20, sensitivity was 100% (95%CI, 86.2-100%). In contrast, 17 out of 114 symptomatic healthcare workers tested at >20 days had negative results, generating a sensitivity of 85.1% (95%CI, 77.4% - 90.5%). All pre-pandemic sera were negative, a specificity of 100%. Seroconversion rates were similar for PCR positive and PCR negative hospitalised cases. ConclusionsThe sensitivity of the Abbot Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay increases over time, with sensitivity not peaking until 20 days post symptoms. Performance varied markedly by setting, with sensitivity significantly worse in symptomatic healthcare workers than in the hospitalised cohort. Clinicians, policymakers, and patients should be aware of the reduced sensitivity in this setting.
RESUMO
Hydroxychloroquine(HCQ) has been widely used to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection however HCQ pharmacokinetics in this condition have not been studied in non-critical care patient groups. Here we report the serum concentrations of HCQ in a small cohort of patients treated with HCQ as part of the RECOVERY trial.
