Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital with and without respiratory symptoms.

Background: COVID-19 is primarily known as a respiratory illness; however, many patients present to hospital without respiratory symptoms. The association between non-respiratory presentations of COVID-19 and outcomes remains unclear. We investigated risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients with no respiratory symptoms (NRS) and respiratory symptoms (RS) at hospital admission. Methods: This study describes clinical features, physiological parameters, and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, stratified by the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms at hospital admission. RS patients had one or more of: cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose or wheezing; while NRS patients did not. Results: Of 178,640 patients in the study, 86.4 % presented with RS, while 13.6 % had NRS. NRS patients were older (median age: NRS: 74 vs RS: 65) and less likely to be admitted to the ICU (NRS: 36.7 % vs RS: 37.5 %). NRS patients had a higher crude in-hospital case-fatality ratio (NRS 41.1 % vs. RS 32.0 %), but a lower risk of death after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.88 [0.83-0.93]). Conclusion: Approximately one in seven COVID-19 patients presented at hospital admission without respiratory symptoms. These patients were older, had lower ICU admission rates, and had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for confounders.

Expanded Access Programme for the use of tecovirimat for the treatment of monkeypox infection: A study protocol for an Expanded Access Programme.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox is a viral zoonotic disease commonly reported in humans in parts of Central and West Africa. This protocol is for an Expanded Access Programme (EAP) to be implemented in the Central African Republic, where Clade I monkeypox virus diseases is primarily responsible for most monkeypox infections. The objective of the programme is to provide patients with confirmed monkeypox with access to tecovirimat, a novel antiviral targeting orthopoxviruses, and collect data on clinical and virological outcomes of patients to inform future research. METHODS: The study will be conducted at participating hospitals in the Central African Republic. All patients who provide informed consent to enrol in the programme will receive tecovirimat. Patients will remain in hospital for the duration of treatment. Data on clinical signs and symptoms will be collected every day while the patient is hospitalised. Blood, throat and lesion samples will be collected at baseline and then on days 4, 8, 14 and 28. Patient outcomes will be assessed on Day 14 -end of treatment-and at Day 28. Adverse event and serious adverse event data will be collected from the point of consent until Day 28. DISCUSSION: This EAP is the first protocolised treatment programme in Clade I MPXV. The data generated under this protocol aims to describe the use of tecovirimat for Clade I disease in a monkeypox endemic region of Central Africa. It is hoped that this data can inform the definition of outcome measures used in future research and contribute to the academic literature around the use of tecovirimat for the treatment of monkeypox. The EAP also aims to bolster research capacity in the region in order for robust randomised controlled trials to take place for monkeypox and other diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: {2a & 2b}: ISRCTN43307947.

Systematic Review of Scales for Measuring Infectious Disease-Related Stigma.

Infectious disease outbreaks are associated with substantial stigma, which can have negative effects on affected persons and communities and on outbreak control. Thus, measuring stigma in a standardized and validated manner early in an outbreak is critical to disease control. We reviewed existing scales used to assess stigma during outbreaks. Our findings show that many different scales have been developed, but few have been used more than once, have been adequately validated, or have been tested in different disease and geographic contexts. We found that scales were usually developed too slowly to be informative early during an outbreak and were published a median of 2 years after the first case of an outbreak. A rigorously developed, transferable stigma scale is needed to assess and direct responses to stigma during infectious disease outbreaks.

MOSAIC: A cohort study of human mpox virus disease.

Background: Human mpox is a viral disease caused by an Orthopoxvirus, human mpox virus (hMPXV), typically causing fever and a rash. Mpox has historically been endemic to parts of Central and West Africa, with small numbers of imported cases reported elsewhere, but starting May 2022 an unprecedented global outbreak caused by clade IIb hMPXV was reported outside traditionally endemic countries. This prompted the initiation of MOSAIC, a cohort study implemented in Europe and Asia that aims to describe clinical and virologic outcomes of PCR-confirmed hMPXV disease, including those who receive antiviral therapy. The focus of this article, however, is on describing the study protocol itself with implementation process and operational challenges. Methods: MOSAIC recruits participants of any age with laboratory-confirmed mpox disease who provide informed consent. Participants enrol in the cohort for a total of six months. Blood, lesion and throat samples are collected at several timepoints from the day of diagnosis or the first day of treatment (Day 1) until Day 28 for PCR detection of hMPXV. Clinical data are collected by clinicians and participants (via a self-completion questionnaire) for six months to characterize the signs and symptoms associated with the illness, as well as short- and more long-term outcomes. Discussion: The design and prompt implementation of clinical research response is key in addressing emerging outbreaks. MOSAIC began enrolment within two months of the start of the international mpox epidemic. Enrolment has been stopped and the last follow-up visits are expected in January 2024. ICTRP registration: EU CT number: 2022-501132-42-00 (22/06/2022).

Variability in clinical assessment of clade IIb mpox lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The ongoing global outbreak of mpox, caused by clade IIb mpox virus, poses significant challenges in accurately categorizing and assessing the diversity of lesions. With lesion resolution being a key endpoint in clinical trials and observational studies, it is essential to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of clade IIb mpox lesion assessment among clinicians. METHODS: Clinicians experienced in clade IIb mpox disease were surveyed online with 20 lesion images. They categorized lesions into active, crusted, resolved, or unclassifiable groups. Reliability was assessed with Fleiss' kappa and agreement with proportion of exact agreement. RESULTS: Fifty-three clinicians completed the survey, with a median self-reported confidence rating of 7 (on a scale of 1 to 10) in assessing mpox lesions. The inter-rater reliability was found to be moderate, with a Fleiss' kappa coefficient of 0.417 (P <0.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.409-0.425). The inter-rater agreement was 61%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates moderate inter-rater reliability and agreement in clade IIb mpox lesion assessment among clinicians. The findings emphasize the importance of standardizing lesion classification systems to facilitate clinical care (e.g., decision to start treatment) and public health (e.g. isolation) decisions and a need to explore alternative endpoints for clinical trials.

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status.

BACKGROUND: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. METHODS: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this question and assess whether differences between these groups are context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. FINDINGS: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. CONCLUSIONS: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. FUNDING: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterization protocol: A prospective, multinational, observational study.

PURPOSE: To determine its cumulative incidence, identify the risk factors associated with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) development, and its impact clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study from the ISARIC database. We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions to explore the risk factors related to MACE development and determine its impact on 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 49,479 patients were included. Most were male 63.5% (31,441/49,479) and from high-income countries (84.4% [42,774/49,479]); however, >6000 patients were registered in low-and-middle-income countries. MACE cumulative incidence during their hospital stay was 17.8% (8829/49,479). The main risk factors independently associated with the development of MACE were older age, chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular disease, smoking history, and requirement of vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation at admission. The overall 28-day and 90-day mortality were higher among patients who developed MACE than those who did not (63.1% [5573/8829] vs. 35.6% [14,487/40,650] p < 0.001; 69.9% [6169/8829] vs. 37.8% [15,372/40,650] p < 0.001, respectively). After adjusting for confounders, MACE remained independently associated with higher 28-day and 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio [95% CI], 1.36 [1.33-1.39];1.47 [1.43-1.50], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 frequently develop MACE, which is independently associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Standard of care for viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHFs): a systematic review of clinical management guidelines for high-priority VHFs.

The Sudan virus disease outbreak in Uganda in 2022 showed our vulnerability to viral haemorrhagic fevers (VHFs). Although there are regular outbreaks of VHFs with high morbidity and mortality, which disproportionally affect low-income settings, our understanding of how to treat them remains inadequate. In this systematic review, we aim to explore the availability, scope, standardisation, and quality of clinical management guidelines for VHFs. We identified 32 guidelines, 25 (78%) of which were low quality and did not have supporting evidence and eight (25%) of which had been produced or updated in the past 3 years. Guidance on supportive care and therapeutics had little detail and was sometimes contradictory. Guidelines based on uncertain evidence are a risk to patients, an ethical challenge for clinicians, and a challenge to implementing trials due to heterogeneous standards of care. We recommend a standard living guideline framework to improve the quality, scope, and applicability of guidelines. Furthermore, investments into trials should aim to identify optimal treatment strategies for VHFs and prioritise affordable and scalable interventions to improve outcomes globally.

The diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests for Ebola virus disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a dangerous condition that can cause an epidemic. Several rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed to diagnose EVD. These RDTs promise to be quicker and easier to use than the current reference standard diagnostic test, PCR. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for EVD. METHODS: A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: The following bibliographic databases were searched from inception to present: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO Global Index Medicus database, Web of Science, PROSPERO register of Systematic Reviews, and Clinical Trials.Gov. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies. PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting to the Ebola treatment units with symptoms of EVD. INTERVENTIONS: RDTs; reference standard, RT-PCR. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy study were produced for each device type. Subgroup analyses were performed for RDT type and specimen material. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of trial design and bias. RESULTS: We included 15 diagnostic accuracy studies. The summary estimate of sensitivity for lateral flow assays was 86.1% (95% CI, 86-86.2%), with specificity of 97% (95% CI, 96.1-97.9%). The summary estimate for rapid PCR devices was sensitivity of 96.2% (95% CI, 95.3-97.9%), with a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 95.3-97.9%). Pre-specified subgroup analyses demonstrated that RDTs were effective on a range of specimen material. Overall, the risk of bias throughout the included studies was low, but it was high in patient selection and uncertain in the flow and timing domains. CONCLUSIONS: RDTs possess both high sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-PCR among symptomatic patients presenting to the Ebola treatment units. Our findings support the use of RDTs as a 'rule in' test to expedite treatment and vaccination.

Addressing stigma in infectious disease outbreaks: a crucial step in pandemic preparedness.

There is a complex interplay between infectious disease outbreaks and the stigmatization of affected persons and communities. Outbreaks are prone to precipitating stigma due to the fear, uncertainty, moralisation, and abatement of freedoms associated with many infectious diseases. In turn, this stigma hampers outbreak control efforts. Understanding this relationship is crucial to improving coordinated outbreak response. This requires valid and reliable methods for assessing stigma towards and within impacted communities. We propose adopting a cross-outbreak model for developing the necessary assessment tools. A stigma-informed approach must then be integrated into outbreak preparedness and response efforts to safeguard public health and promote inclusivity and compassion in future outbreaks.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Availability, scope and quality of monkeypox clinical management guidelines globally: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox (MPX) is an important human Orthopoxvirus infection. There has been an increase in MPX cases and outbreaks in endemic and non-endemic regions in recent decades. We appraised the availability, scope, quality and inclusivity of clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched six databases from inception until 14 October 2021, augmented by a grey literature search until 17 May 2022. MPX guidelines providing treatment and supportive care recommendations were included, with no exclusions for language. Two reviewers assessed the guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: Of 2026 records screened, 14 guidelines were included. Overall, most guidelines were of low-quality with a median score of 2 out of 7 (range: 1-7), lacked detail and covered a narrow range of topics. Most guidelines focused on adults, five (36%) provided some advice for children, three (21%) for pregnant women and three (21%) for people living with HIV. Treatment guidance was mostly limited to advice on antivirals; seven guidelines advised cidofovir (four specified for severe MPX only); 29% (4/14) tecovirimat, and 7% (1/14) brincidofovir. Only one guideline provided recommendations on supportive care and treatment of complications. All guidelines recommended vaccination as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Three guidelines advised on vaccinia immune globulin as PEP for severe cases in people with immunosuppression. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight a lack of evidence-based clinical management guidelines for MPX globally. There is a clear and urgent need for research into treatment and prophylaxis including for different risk populations. The current outbreak provides an opportunity to accelerate this research through coordinated high-quality studies. New evidence should be incorporated into globally accessible guidelines, to benefit patient and epidemic outcomes. A 'living guideline' framework is recommended. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020167361.

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use.

Remote COVID-19 patient monitoring system: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many COVID-19 patients are discharged home from hospital with instructions to self-isolate. This reduces the burden on potentially overwhelmed hospitals. The Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) Home Monitoring Programme (HMP) is a model of care for COVID-19 patients which chiefly tracks pulse oximetry and body temperature readings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the HMP from a patient perspective. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Of 46 COVID-19 patients who used the HMP through RMH during April to August 2020, 16 were invited to participate in this qualitative evaluation study; all accepted, including 6 healthcare workers. Attempts were made to recruit a gender-balanced sample across a range of COVID-19 severities and comorbidities. Participants completed a brief semistructured phone interview discussing their experience of using the HMP. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: A thematic analysis of interview data was conducted. Feasibility was defined as the HMP's reported ease of use. Acceptability was considered holistically by reviewing themes in the interview data. RESULTS: The HMP allowed clinical deterioration to be recognised as it occurred enabling prompt intervention. All participants reported a positive opinion of the HMP, stating it was highly acceptable and easy to use. Almost all participants said they found using it reassuring. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of the monitoring clinicians as an information conduit. The most suggested improvement was to monitor a broader set of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The HMP is highly feasible and acceptable to patients. This model of care could potentially be implemented on a mass-scale to reduce the burden of COVID-19 on hospitals. A key benefit of the HMP is the ability to reassure patients they will receive suitable intervention should they deteriorate while isolating outside of hospital settings.