Comparison of post-COVID-19 symptoms in patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 variants delta and omicron-results of the Cross-Sectoral Platform of the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON-SUEP).

PURPOSE: The influence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants on the post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) remains unanswered. Therefore, we examined the prevalence and predictors of PCC-related symptoms in patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 variants delta or omicron. METHODS: We compared prevalences and risk factors of acute and PCC-related symptoms three months after primary infection (3MFU) between delta- and omicron-infected patients from the Cross-Sectoral Platform of the German National Pandemic Cohort Network. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) was determined by the EQ-5D-5L index score and trend groups were calculated to describe changes of HrQoL between different time points. RESULTS: We considered 758 patients for our analysis (delta: n = 341; omicron: n = 417). Compared with omicron patients, delta patients had a similar prevalence of PCC at the 3MFU (p = 0.354), whereby fatigue occurred most frequently (n = 256, 34%). HrQoL was comparable between the groups with the lowest EQ-5D-5L index score (0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) at disease onset. While most patients (69%, n = 348) never showed a declined HrQoL, it deteriorated substantially in 37 patients (7%) from the acute phase to the 3MFU of which 27 were infected with omicron. CONCLUSION: With quality-controlled data from a multicenter cohort, we showed that PCC is an equally common challenge for patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 variants delta and omicron at least for the German population. Developing the EQ-5D-5L index score trend groups showed that over two thirds of patients did not experience any restrictions in their HrQoL due to or after the SARS-CoV-2 infection at the 3MFU. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: The cohort is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since February 24, 2021 (Identifier: NCT04768998).

A Systematic Review of Predictor Composition, Outcomes, Risk of Bias, and Validation of COVID-19 Prognostic Scores.

BACKGROUND: Numerous prognostic scores have been published to support risk stratification for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed a systematic review to identify the scores for confirmed or clinically assumed COVID-19 cases. An in-depth assessment and risk of bias (ROB) analysis (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool [PROBAST]) was conducted for scores fulfilling predefined criteria ([I] area under the curve [AUC)] ≥ 0.75; [II] a separate validation cohort present; [III] training data from a multicenter setting [≥2 centers]; [IV] point-scale scoring system). RESULTS: Out of 1522 studies extracted from MEDLINE/Web of Science (20/02/2023), we identified 242 scores for COVID-19 outcome prognosis (mortality 109, severity 116, hospitalization 14, long-term sequelae 3). Most scores were developed using retrospective (75.2%) or single-center (57.1%) cohorts. Predictor analysis revealed the primary use of laboratory data and sociodemographic information in mortality and severity scores. Forty-nine scores were included in the in-depth analysis. The results indicated heterogeneous quality and predictor selection, with only five scores featuring low ROB. Among those, based on the number and heterogeneity of validation studies, only the 4C Mortality Score can be recommended for clinical application so far. CONCLUSIONS: The application and translation of most existing COVID scores appear unreliable. Guided development and predictor selection would have improved the generalizability of the scores and may enhance pandemic preparedness in the future.

Ethical and coordinative challenges in setting up a national cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

With the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), global researchers were confronted with major challenges. The German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) was launched in fall 2020 to effectively leverage resources and bundle research activities in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We analyzed the setup phase of NAPKON as an example for multicenter studies in Germany, highlighting challenges and optimization potential in connecting 59 university and nonuniversity study sites. We examined the ethics application process of 121 ethics submissions considering durations, annotations, and outcomes. Study site activation and recruitment processes were investigated and related to the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. For all initial ethics applications, the median time to a positive ethics vote was less than two weeks and 30 of these study sites (65%) joined NAPKON within less than three weeks each. Electronic instead of postal ethics submission (9.5 days (Q1: 5.75, Q3: 17) vs. 14 days (Q1: 11, Q3: 26), p value = 0.01) and adoption of the primary ethics vote significantly accelerated the ethics application process. Each study center enrolled a median of 37 patients during the 14-month observation period, with large differences depending on the health sector. We found a positive correlation between recruitment performance and COVID-19 incidence as well as hospitalization incidence. Our analysis highlighted the challenges and opportunities of the federated system in Germany. Digital ethics application tools, adoption of a primary ethics vote and standardized formal requirements lead to harmonized and thus faster study initiation processes during a pandemic.

Use and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with covid-19 using data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS): a multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The use of remdesivir (RDV) as the first drug approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. Based on the Lean European Open Survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients (LEOSS), we aim to contribute timing-focused complementary real-world insights to its evaluation. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with RDV were matched 1:1 to controls considering sociodemographics, comorbidities and clinical status. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data. Effects on fatal outcome were estimated using uni- and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: We included 9,687 patients. For those starting RDV administration in the complicated phase, Cox regression for fatal outcome showed an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.83). Positive trends could be obtained for further scenarios: an aHR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.16-1.68) when RDV was initiated in uncomplicated and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-1.04) in a critical phase of disease. Patients receiving RDV with concomitant steroids exhibited a further reduction in aHR in both, the complicated (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.88) and critical phase (aHR 0.63, 95%CI 0.39-1.02). CONCLUSION: Our study results elucidate that RDV use, in particular when initiated in the complicated phase and accompanied by steroids is associated with improved mortality. However, given the limitations of non-randomized trials in estimating the magnitude of the benefit of an intervention, further randomized trials focusing on the timing of therapy initiation seem warranted.

Matched-paired analysis of patients treated for invasive mucormycosis: standard treatment versus posaconazole new formulations (MoveOn).

BACKGROUND: First-line antifungal treatment for invasive mucormycosis (IM) consists of liposomal amphotericin B. Salvage treatment options are limited and often based on posaconazole oral suspension. With the approval of posaconazole new formulations, patients could benefit from improved pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of posaconazole new formulations for IM treatment. METHODS: We performed a case-matched analysis with proven or probable IM patients from the FungiScope® Registry. First-line posaconazole new formulations (1st-POSnew) and first-line amphotericin B plus posaconazole new formulations (1st-AMB+POSnew) cases were matched with first-line amphotericin B-based (1st-AMB) treatment controls. Salvage posaconazole new formulations (SAL-POSnew) cases were matched with salvage posaconazole oral suspension (SAL-POSsusp) controls. Each case was matched with up to three controls (based on severity, haematological/oncological malignancy, surgery and/or renal dysfunction). RESULTS: Five patients receiving 1st-POSnew, 18 receiving 1st-AMB+POSnew and 22 receiving SAL-POSnew were identified. By day 42, a favourable response was reported for 80.0% (n = 4/5) of patients receiving 1st-POSnew, for 27.8% (n = 5/18) receiving 1st-AMB+POSnew and for 50.0% (n = 11/22) receiving SAL-POSnew. Day 42 all-cause mortality of patients receiving posaconazole new formulations was lower compared with controls [20.0% (n = 1/5) in 1st-POSnew versus 53.3% (n = 8/15) in 1st-AMB; 33.3% (n = 6/18) in 1st-AMB+POSnew versus 52.0% (n = 26/50) in 1st-AMB; and 0.0% (n = 0/22) in SAL-POSnew versus 4.4% (n = 2/45) in SAL-POSsusp]. CONCLUSIONS: Posaconazole new formulations were effective in terms of treatment response and associated mortality of IM. While posaconazole new formulations may be an alternative for treatment of IM, the limited sample size of our study calls for a cautious interpretation of these observations.

FungiScope™ -Global Emerging Fungal Infection Registry.

Rare invasive fungal diseases (IFD) are challenging for the treating physicians because of their unspecific clinical presentation, as well as the lack of standardised diagnostic and effective treatment strategies. Late onset of treatment and inappropriate medication is associated with high mortality, thus, urging the need for a better understanding of these diseases. The purpose of FungiScope™ is to continuously collect clinical information and specimens to improve the knowledge on epidemiology and eventually improve patient management of these orphan diseases. FungiScope™ was founded in 2003, and today, collaborators from 66 countries support the registry. So far, clinical data of 794 cases have been entered using a web-based approach. Within the growing network of experts, new collaborations developed, leading to several publications of comprehensive analyses of patient subgroups identified from the registry. Data extracted from FungiScope™ have also been used as the sole control group for the approval of a new antifungal drug. Due to the rarity of these diseases, a global registry is an appropriate method of pooling the scarce and scattered information. Joining efforts across medical specialities and geographical borders is key for researching rare IFD. Here, we describe the structure and management of the FungiScope™ registry.

A cohort study on breakthrough invasive fungal infections in high-risk patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended for haematological patients at high risk of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Incidence, optimal therapeutic management and outcome of breakthrough IFIs (bIFIs) are largely unknown. METHODS: To assess bIFI incidence, treatment and outcomes, data on patients undergoing AML remission-induction and consolidation chemotherapy and from allogeneic HSCT recipients on antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole, micafungin or posaconazole were extracted from the Cologne Cohort of Neutropenic Patients (CoCoNut). bIFIs were classified according to revised EORTC/MSG criteria. RESULTS: From January 2004 to April 2013, 250 AML patients with 329 hospitalizations and 409 HSCT patients with 496 hospitalizations were identified. In AML patients, there were 16 (6.4%) proven or probable bIFIs and 44 (17.6%) possible bIFIs. In HSCT patients, there were 14 (3.4%) proven or probable bIFIs and 37 (9.0%) possible bIFIs. Proven cases included five candidaemias, two mucormycoses, three aspergilloses and one fusariosis. The most frequent choice for bIFI treatment was liposomal amphotericin B in AML patients (21/60; 35.0%) and continuation of posaconazole prophylaxis in HSCT patients (16/51; 31.4%). In HSCT recipients, survival on day 365 was significantly lower in bIFI patients (AML, 63.3% versus 70.0%; P = 0.297; HSCT, 49.0% versus 66.8%; P = 0.012). Comparison of continuation of prophylaxis versus switch of antifungal class as first-line treatment showed no significant difference regarding response to treatment and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of bIFIs observed in our population were comparable to previous data. There was no clear shift towards rare species, as previously reported. A high variety of treatment approaches was observed.

Isavuconazole treatment for mucormycosis: a single-arm open-label trial and case-control analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mucormycosis is an uncommon invasive fungal disease with high mortality and few treatment options. Isavuconazole is a triazole active in vitro and in animal models against moulds of the order Mucorales. We assessed the efficacy and safety of isavuconazole for treatment of mucormycosis and compared its efficacy with amphotericin B in a matched case-control analysis. METHODS: In a single-arm open-label trial (VITAL study), adult patients (≥18 years) with invasive fungal disease caused by rare fungi, including mucormycosis, were recruited from 34 centres worldwide. Patients were given isavuconazole 200 mg (as its intravenous or oral water-soluble prodrug, isavuconazonium sulfate) three times daily for six doses, followed by 200 mg/day until invasive fungal disease resolution, failure, or for 180 days or more. The primary endpoint was independent data review committee-determined overall response-ie, complete or partial response (treatment success) or stable or progressive disease (treatment failure)-according to prespecified criteria. Mucormycosis cases treated with isavuconazole as primary treatment were matched with controls from the FungiScope Registry, recruited from 17 centres worldwide, who received primary amphotericin B-based treatment, and were analysed for day-42 all-cause mortality. VITAL is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00634049. FungiScope is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01731353. FINDINGS: Within the VITAL study, from April 22, 2008, to June 21, 2013, 37 patients with mucormycosis received isavuconazole for a median of 84 days (IQR 19-179, range 2-882). By day 42, four patients (11%) had a partial response, 16 (43%) had stable invasive fungal disease, one (3%) had invasive fungal disease progression, three (8%) had missing assessments, and 13 (35%) had died. 35 patients (95%) had adverse events (28 [76%] serious). Day-42 crude all-cause mortality in seven (33%) of 21 primary-treatment isavuconazole cases was similar to 13 (39%) of 33 amphotericin B-treated matched controls (weighted all-cause mortality: 33% vs 41%; p=0·595). INTERPRETATION: Isavuconazole showed activity against mucormycosis with efficacy similar to amphotericin B. Isavuconazole can be used for treatment of mucormycosis and is well tolerated. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Basilea Pharmaceutica International.

Efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin as antibacterial prophylaxis for patients receiving autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a randomised trial.

Patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) are at high risk of infections, especially bacteraemia. A prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, single-centre, pilot study was performed on oral moxifloxacin 400mg versus placebo for preventing bacteraemia in PBSCT recipients. Patients received moxifloxacin or placebo for the duration of neutropenia or until emergence of fever or other infections necessitating intravenous antibiotic treatment. Of 68 patients included in the trial, 2 were excluded from the trial before taking their first dose. The remaining 66 patients were eligible for evaluation in the intention-to-treat analysis set. Neutropenia with an absolute neutrophil count of <500cells/µL developed in 30 moxifloxacin-treated patients (88.2%) and 21 patients in the placebo group (65.6%) (P<0.03). Nine patients (26.5%) and eight patients (25.0%), respectively, were prematurely discontinued from study treatment. Breakthrough bacteraemia occurred in 3 moxifloxacin-treated patients (8.8%) and 9 patients in the placebo group (28.1%) (P=0.042). The time period until fever was 9.5 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.06-10.94 days) and 7.69 days (95% CI 6.51-8.85 days), respectively (P=0.0499). There was no difference in adverse events or toxicities between the groups. Moxifloxacin prevented bacteraemia and shortened febrile episodes in patients receiving autologous PBSCT. No significant increase of adverse events in the moxifloxacin arm was observed, possibly due to the rather small sample size.