Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infections Compared With Seasonal Influenza and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections in Adults Attending the Emergency Department: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a controversy over the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in an era of less virulent variants and an increasing population immunity. We compared outcomes in adults attending the emergency department (ED) with an Omicron, influenza, or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter cohort study including adults attending the ED in 6 acute care hospitals in Stockholm County, Sweden, with an Omicron, influenza, or RSV infection during 2021-2022 and 2015-2019. During 2021-2022, patients were tested for all 3 viruses by multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 90-day all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: A total of 6385 patients from 2021-2022 were included in the main analyses: 4833 Omicron, 1099 influenza, and 453 RSV. The 30-day mortality was 7.9% (n = 381) in the Omicron, 2.5% (n = 28) in the influenza, and 6.0% (n = 27) in the RSV cohort. Patients with Omicron had an adjusted 30-day mortality odds ratio (OR) of 2.36 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-3.62) compared with influenza and 1.42 (95% CI .94-2.21) compared with RSV. Among unvaccinated Omicron patients, stronger associations were observed compared with both influenza (OR 5.51 [95% CI 3.41-9.18]) and RSV (OR 3.29 [95% CI 2.01-5.56]). Similar trends were observed for secondary outcomes. Findings were consistent in comparisons with 5709 pre-pandemic influenza 995 RSV patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients attending the ED, infections with Omicron were both more common and associated with more severe outcomes compared with influenza and RSV, in particular among unvaccinated patients.

Bacterial co-infections in community-acquired pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus.

BACKGROUND: A mismatch between a widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotic agents and a low prevalence of reported bacterial co-infections in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections has been observed. Herein, we sought to characterize and compare bacterial co-infections at admission in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, influenza or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of bacterial co-infections at admission in SARS-CoV-2, influenza or RSV-positive adult patients with CAP admitted to Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, from year 2011 to 2020. The prevalence of bacterial co-infections was investigated and compared between the three virus groups. In each virus group, length of stay, ICU-admission and 30-day mortality was compared in patients with and without bacterial co-infection, adjusting for age, sex and co-morbidities. In the SARS-CoV-2 group, risk factors for bacterial co-infection, were assessed using logistic regression models and creation of two scoring systems based on disease severity, age, co-morbidities and inflammatory markers with assessment of concordance statistics. RESULTS: Compared to influenza and RSV, the bacterial co-infection testing frequency in SARS-CoV-2 was lower for all included test modalities. Four percent [46/1243 (95% CI 3-5)] of all SARS-CoV-2 patients had a bacterial co-infection at admission, whereas the proportion was 27% [209/775 (95% CI 24-30)] and 29% [69/242 (95% CI 23-35)] in influenza and RSV, respectively. S. pneumoniae and S. aureus constituted the most common bacterial findings for all three virus groups. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with and without bacterial co-infection at admission, a relevant association could not be demonstrated nor excluded with regards to risk of ICU-admission (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 0.87-2.69) or 30-day mortality (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 0.66-2.46) in adjusted analyses. Bacterial co-infection was associated with increased inflammatory markers, but the diagnostic accuracy was not substantially different in a scoring system based on disease severity, age, co-morbidities and inflammatory parameters [C statistic 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.74)], compared to using disease severity, age and co-morbidities only [C statistic 0.63 (95% CI 0.56-0.70)]. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of bacterial co-infections was significantly lower in patients with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 positive pneumonia as compared to influenza and RSV positive pneumonia.

Five sessions of hyperbaric oxygen for critically ill patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS: A randomised, open label, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Data on the benefits and harms of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) for this condition is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate benefits and harms of HBOT in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS. METHODS: In this open-label trial conducted at three hospitals in Sweden and Germany, patients with moderate to severe ARDS and at least two risk factors for unfavourable outcome, were randomly assigned (1:1) to medical oxygen 100 %, 2·4 Atmospheres absolute (ATA), 80 min (HBOT) adjuvant to best practice or to best practice alone (Control). Randomisation was stratified by sex and site. The primary endpoint was ICU admission by Day 30. RESULTS: Between June 4, 2020, and Dec 1, 2021, 34 subjects were randomised to HBOT (N = 18) or Control (N = 16). The trial was prematurely terminated for futility. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU admission, 5 (50 %) in Control vs 13 (72 %) in HBOT. OR 2·54 [95 % CI 0·62-10·39], p = 0·19. HARMS: 102 adverse events (AEs) were recorded. 16 (94 %) subjects in the HBOT group and 14 (93 %) in the control group had at least one AE. Three serious adverse events (SAEs), were at least, possibly related to HBOT. All deaths were unlikely related to HBOT. CONCLUSIONS: HBOT did not reduce ICU admission or mortality in patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. The trial cannot conclude definitive benefits or harms. Treating COVID-19-induced ARDS with HBOT is feasible with a favourable harms profile.

COVID-19-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Treated with Hyperbaric Oxygen: Interim Safety Report from a Randomized Clinical Trial (COVID-19-HBO).

BACKGROUND: A few prospective trials and case series have suggested that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may be efficacious for the treatment of severe COVID-19, but safety is a concern for critically ill patients. We present an interim analysis of the safety of HBOT via a randomized controlled trial (COVID-19-HBO). METHODS: A randomized controlled, open-label, clinical trial was conducted in compliance with good clinical practice to explore the safety and efficacy of HBOT for severe COVID-19 in critically ill patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Between 3 June 2020, and 17 May 2021, 31 patients with severe COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) < 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg), and at least two defined risk factors for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or mortality were enrolled in the trial and randomized 1:1 to best practice, or HBOT in addition to best practice. The subjects allocated to HBOT received a maximum of five treatments at 2.4 atmospheres absolute (ATA) for 80 min over seven days. The subjects were followed up for 30 days. The safety endpoints were analyzed. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were common. Hypoxia was the most common adverse event reported. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Numerically, serious adverse events (SAEs) and barotrauma were more frequent in the control group, and the differences between groups were in favor of the HBOT in PaO2/FiO2 (PFI) and the national early warning score (NEWS); statistically, however, the differences were not significant at day 7, and no difference was observed for the total oxygen burden and cumulative pulmonary oxygen toxicity dose (CPTD). CONCLUSION: HBOT appears to be safe as an intervention for critically ill patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS induced by COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04327505 (31 March 2020) and EudraCT 2020-001349-37 (24 April 2020).

Hyperbaric oxygen for treatment of long COVID-19 syndrome (HOT-LoCO): protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID-19, where symptoms persist 12 weeks after the initial SARS-CoV-2-infection, is a substantial problem for individuals and society in the surge of the pandemic. Common symptoms are fatigue, postexertional malaise and cognitive dysfunction. There is currently no effective treatment and the underlying mechanisms are unknown, although several hypotheses exist, with chronic inflammation as a common denominator. In prospective studies, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to be effective for the treatment of similar syndromes such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. A case series has suggested positive effects of HBOT in long COVID-19. This randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial will explore HBOT as a potential treatment for long COVID-19. The primary objective is to evaluate if HBOT improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with long COVID-19 compared with placebo/sham. The main secondary objective is to evaluate whether HBOT improves endothelial function, objective physical performance and short-term HRQoL. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II clinical trial in 80 previously healthy subjects debilitated due to long COVID-19, with low HRQoL. Clinical data, HRQoL questionnaires, blood samples, objective tests and activity metre data will be collected at baseline. Subjects will be randomised to a maximum of 10 treatments with hyperbaric oxygen or sham treatment over 6 weeks. Assessments for safety and efficacy will be performed at 6, 13, 26 and 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint (physical domains in RAND 36-Item Health Survey) and main secondary endpoints defined at 13 weeks after baseline. Data will be reviewed by an independent data safety monitoring board. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved by the Swedish National Institutional Review Board (2021-02634) and the Swedish Medical Products Agency (5.1-2020-36673). Positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04842448.

Outcomes of Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection vs Influenza and Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections.

This cohort study compares outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection with those of influenza or respiratory syncytial virus infection in pediatric patients attending the emergency department.