Management and Outcome of COVID-19 Positive and Negative Patients in French Emergency Departments During the First COVID-19 Outbreak: A Prospective Controlled Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have investigated the management of COVID-19 cases from the operational perspective of the emergency department (ED), We sought to compare the management and outcome of COVID-19 positive and negative patients who presented to French EDs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study in four EDs. Included in the study were adult patients (≥18 years) between March 6-May 10, 2020, were hospitalized, and whose presenting symptoms were evocative of COVID-19. We compared the clinical features, management, and prognosis of patients according to their confirmed COVID-19 status. RESULTS: Of the 2,686 patients included in this study, 760 (28.3%) were COVID-19 positive. Among them, 364 (48.0%) had hypertension, 228 (30.0%) had chronic cardiac disease, 186 (24.5%) had diabetes, 126 (16.6%) were obese, and 114 (15.0%) had chronic respiratory disease. The proportion of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) was higher among COVID-19 positive patients (185/760, 24.3%) compared to COVID-19 negative patients (206/1,926, 10.7%; P <0.001), and they required mechanical ventilation (89, 11.9% vs 37, 1.9%; P <0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (135, 18.1% vs 41, 2.2%; P < 0.001) more frequently. The in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among COVID-19 positive patients (139, 18.3% vs 149, 7.7%; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Emergency departments were on the frontline during the COVID-19 pandemic and had to manage potential COVID-19 patients. Understanding what happened in the ED during this first outbreak is crucial to underline the importance of flexible organizations that can quickly adapt the bed capacities to the incoming flow of COVID-19 positive patients.

Serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: A cohort study and a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is considered as a cornerstone of the management of COVID-19 pandemic. However, while vaccines provide a robust protection in immunocompetent individuals, the immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) is not well established. METHODS: A monocentric observational study evaluated the immunogenicity of a two-dose regimen vaccine in adult patients with IRD (n=123) treated with targeted or biological therapies. Serum IgG antibody levels against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike proteins were measured after the second vaccination. In addition, a search for observational studies performed in IRD under biologic or targeted therapies up to September 31, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021259410) was undertaken in publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources. Studies that reported sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: Of 123 patients (median age 66 IQR 57-75), 69.9% have seroconverted after vaccination. Seroconverted patients were older than non-seroconverted ones in our cohort. Rituximab was associated with a significantly low antibody response. Besides, we identified 20 seroprevalence studies in addition to our cohort including 4423 participants in 11 countries. Meta-analysis confirmed a negative impact of rituximab on seroconversion rate and suggested a less substantial effect of abatacept, leflunomide and methotrexate. CONCLUSION: Rituximab impairs serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with IRD. This work suggests also a negative impact of abatacept, methotrexate or leflunomide especially when associated to biological therapy.

Effective Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immune Response in Patients With Clonal Mast Cell Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Mast cells are key players in innate immunity and the TH2 adaptive immune response. The latter counterbalances the TH1 response, which is critical for antiviral immunity. Clonal mast cell activation disorders (cMCADs, such as mastocytosis and clonal mast cell activation syndrome) are characterized by abnormal mast cell accumulation and/or activation. No data on the antiviral immune response in patients with MCADs have been published. OBJECTIVE: To study a comprehensive range of outcomes in patients with cMCAD with PCR- or serologically confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 and to characterize the specific anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune response in this setting. METHODS: Clinical follow-up and outcome data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period by members of the French Centre de Référence des Mastocytoses rare disease network. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell activity was measured with an ELISA, and humoral responses were evaluated by assaying circulating levels of specific IgG, IgA, and neutralizing antibodies. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients with cMCAD were evaluated. None required noninvasive or mechanical ventilation. Two patients were admitted to hospital for oxygen and steroid therapy. The SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response was characterized in 21 of the 32 patients. Most had high counts of circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific, IFN-γ-producing T cells and high titers of neutralizing antispike IgGs. The patients frequently showed spontaneous T-cell IFN-γ production in the absence of stimulation; this production was correlated with basal circulating tryptase levels (a marker of the mast cell burden). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cMCADs might not be at risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019, perhaps due to their spontaneous production of IFN-γ.

Risk Factors for Venous Thromboembolism in Severe COVID-19: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of 21 Studies.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICU) is frequent, but risk factors (RF) remain unidentified. In this meta-analysis (CRD42020188764) we searched for observational studies from ICUs reporting the association between VTE and RF in Medline/Embase up to 15 April 2021. Reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Analyses were conducted using the random-effects model and produced a non-adjusted odds ratio (OR). We analysed 83 RF from 21 studies (5296 patients). We found moderate-certainty evidence for an association between VTE and the D-dimer peak (OR 5.83, 95%CI 3.18-10.70), and length of hospitalization (OR 7.09, 95%CI 3.41-14.73) and intubation (OR 2.61, 95%CI 1.94-3.51). We identified low-certainty evidence for an association between VTE and CRP (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.32-2.53), D-dimer (OR 4.58, 95% CI 2.52-8.50), troponin T (OR 8.64, 95% CI 3.25-22.97), and the requirement for inotropic drugs (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.15-2.43). Traditional VTE RF (i.e., history of cancer, previous VTE events, obesity) were not found to be associated to VTE in COVID-19. Anticoagulation was not associated with a decreased VTE risk. VTE RF in severe COVID-19 correspond to individual illness severity, and inflammatory and coagulation parameters.

Venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 cohorts: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many studies confirmed an association between COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether the risk of VTE significantly differed between COVID-19 cohorts and non-COVID-19 cohorts with similar disease severity remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the rate of VTE between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts with similar disease severity. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, Embase and Google Scholar) was conducted from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 to identify studies reporting VTE in COVID-19. Relative risks (RR) were estimated for the effect measure with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Seven studies (41,768 patients) evaluated VTE in COVID-19 cohorts compared to non-COVID-19 cohorts. The overall risk of VTE (RR 1.18; 95%CI 0.79-1.77; p = 0.42; I2 = 54%), pulmonary embolism (RR 1.25; 95%CI 0.77-2.03; p = 0.36; I2 = 52%) and deep venous thrombosis (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.52-1.65; p = 0.78; I2 = 0%) did not significantly differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts. However, subgroup analyses suggested an increased risk of VTE amongst CODID-19 versus non COVID-19 cohorts when only patients hospitalized within the intensive care unit (ICU) were considered (RR 3.10; 95%CI 1.54-6.23), which was not observed in cohorts of predominantly non-ICU patients (RR 0.95; 95%CI 0.81-1.11) (Pinteraction = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was no signal for a difference in VTE in COVID-19 cohorts compared to non-COVID-19 cohorts, except for the subgroup of patients hospitalized in the ICU. These results should be viewed as exploratory and further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Arterial and venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: a study-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of venous thromboembolic event (VTE) and arterial thromboembolic event (ATE) thromboembolic events in patients with COVID-19 remains largely unknown. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we systematically searched for observational studies describing the prevalence of VTE and ATE in COVID-19 up to 30 September 2020. RESULTS: We analysed findings from 102 studies (64 503 patients). The frequency of COVID-19-related VTE was 14.7% (95% CI 12.1% to 17.6%, I2=94%; 56 studies; 16 507 patients). The overall prevalence rates of pulmonary embolism (PE) and leg deep vein thrombosis were 7.8% (95% CI 6.2% to 9.4%, I2=94%; 66 studies; 23 117 patients) and 11.2% (95% CI 8.4% to 14.3%, I2=95%; 48 studies; 13 824 patients), respectively. Few were isolated subsegmental PE. The VTE prevalence was significantly higher in intensive care unit (ICU) (23.2%, 95% CI 17.5% to 29.6%, I2=92%, vs 9.0%, 95% CI 6.9% to 11.4%, I2=95%; pinteraction<0.0001) and in series systematically screening patients compared with series testing symptomatic patients (25.2% vs 12.7%, pinteraction=0.04). The frequency rates of overall ATE, acute coronary syndrome, stroke and other ATE were 3.9% (95% CI 2.0% to to 3.0%, I2=96%; 16 studies; 7939 patients), 1.6% (95% CI 1.0% to 2.2%, I2=93%; 27 studies; 40 597 patients) and 0.9% (95% CI 0.5% to 1.5%, I2=84%; 17 studies; 20 139 patients), respectively. Metaregression and subgroup analyses failed to explain heterogeneity of overall ATE. High heterogeneity limited the value of estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted in the ICU for severe COVID-19 had a high risk of VTE. Conversely, further studies are needed to determine the specific effects of COVID-19 on the risk of ATE or VTE in less severe forms of the disease.