High In-Hospital Mortality in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients with Active Cancer Disease during Omicron Phase of the Pandemic: Insights from the CORONA Germany Study.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer have a worse outcome including a significant higher mortality, compared to non-cancer patients. However, limited data are available regarding in-hospital mortality during the Omicron phase of the pandemic. Therefore, the aim of the study was the comparison of mortality in patients with history of cancer and patients with active cancer disease during the different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the current Omicron variant of concern. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational, epidemiological cohort study at 45 hospitals in Germany. Until July 20, 2022, all adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality regarding cancer status (history of cancer and active cancer disease) and SARS-CoV-2 virus type. RESULTS: From March 11, 2020, to July 20, 2022, a total of 27,490 adult SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included in the study. 2,578 patients (9.4%) had diagnosis of cancer, of whom 1,065 (41.3%) had history of cancer, whereas 1,513 (58.7%) had active cancer disease. Overall 3,749 out of the total of 27,490 patients (13.6%) died during the hospital stay. Patients with active cancer disease had a significantly higher mortality compared to patients without cancer diagnosis, in both phases of the pandemic (wild-type to Delta: OR 1.940 [1.646-2.285]); Omicron: 2.864 [2.354-3.486]). After adjustment to co-variables, SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with active cancer disease had the highest risk for in-hospital mortality compared to the other groups, in both phases of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The CORONA Germany study indicates that hospitalized patients with active cancer disease are at high risk of death during a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality of patients with history of cancer improved to nearly the level of non-cancer patients during Omicron phase.

Changes in Behavior After Vaccination and Opinions Toward Mask Wearing: Thoracic Oncology Patient-Reported Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 vaccines, face masks, and social distancing are effective interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. In this study, we aimed to determine lung cancer patients' attitudes toward vaccination, changes in behavior after vaccination, and willingness to continue mask wearing after the pandemic. Methods: We sent out questionnaires to 220 thoracic oncology patients treated at our lung cancer center in May 2021. The questionnaire focused on patients' vaccination status, self-reported experiences surrounding vaccination, and assessed changes in behaviors before and after vaccination as well as opinions toward mask wearing after the pandemic. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies and means with standard deviation and compared using t test, paired t test, and analysis of variance test as well as chi2 test, and Fisher exact text. Results: About 91.0% of patients reported having received at least 1 vaccination. About 73.3% of patients reported having at least 1 reaction to the vaccination. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. After vaccination, patients increased contact with family and friends, use of public transport, and grocery shopping. Overall, the level of willingness to wear masks beyond the end of the pandemic differed according to vaccination status. Conclusions: Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination among thoracic oncology patients in Germany was high. Overall, patients with thoracic malignancies tolerated the COVID-19 vaccination well. Rate of adverse reaction was not higher compared with the general population. After the vaccination, patients increased social contacts and usage of public transport. These changes suggest positive psychological effects on quality of life. While reducing social distancing can increase the risk of infection, our results indicate that an extension of mask mandates after the pandemic would likely be accepted by a majority of thoracic oncology patients, suggesting that our cohort was still aware and in support of other measure of protection.

Changes in Behavior After Vaccination and Opinions Toward Mask Wearing: Thoracic Oncology Patient–Reported Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 vaccines, face masks, and social distancing are effective interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. In this study, we aimed to determine lung cancer patients’ attitudes toward vaccination, changes in behavior after vaccination, and willingness to continue mask wearing after the pandemic. Methods: We sent out questionnaires to 220 thoracic oncology patients treated at our lung cancer center in May 2021. The questionnaire focused on patients’ vaccination status, self-reported experiences surrounding vaccination, and assessed changes in behaviors before and after vaccination as well as opinions toward mask wearing after the pandemic. Results are presented as absolute and relative frequencies and means with standard deviation and compared using t test, paired t test, and analysis of variance test as well as chi2 test, and Fisher exact text. Results: About 91.0% of patients reported having received at least 1 vaccination. About 73.3% of patients reported having at least 1 reaction to the vaccination. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. After vaccination, patients increased contact with family and friends, use of public transport, and grocery shopping. Overall, the level of willingness to wear masks beyond the end of the pandemic differed according to vaccination status. Conclusions: Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination among thoracic oncology patients in Germany was high. Overall, patients with thoracic malignancies tolerated the COVID-19 vaccination well. Rate of adverse reaction was not higher compared with the general population. After the vaccination, patients increased social contacts and usage of public transport. These changes suggest positive psychological effects on quality of life. While reducing social distancing can increase the risk of infection, our results indicate that an extension of mask mandates after the pandemic would likely be accepted by a majority of thoracic oncology patients, suggesting that our cohort was still aware and in support of other measure of protection.

Evidence for increased SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and COVID-19 severity related to pre-existing immunity to seasonal coronaviruses.

The importance of pre-existing immune responses to seasonal endemic coronaviruses (HCoVs) for the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and the course of COVID-19 is the subject of an ongoing scientific debate. Recent studies postulate that immune responses to previous HCoV infections can either have a slightly protective or no effect on SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and, consequently, be neglected for COVID-19 risk stratification. Challenging this notion, we provide evidence that pre-existing, anti-nucleocapsid antibodies against endemic α-coronaviruses and S2 domain-specific anti-spike antibodies against ß-coronavirus HCoV-OC43 are elevated in patients with COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic donors. This finding is particularly pronounced in males and in critically ill patients. Longitudinal evaluation reveals that antibody cross-reactivity or polyclonal stimulation by SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to be confounders. Thus, specific pre-existing immunity to seasonal coronaviruses may increase susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 and predispose individuals to an adverse COVID-19 outcome, guiding risk management and supporting the development of universal coronavirus vaccines.

Lung Transplantation for Patients With COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused acute lung injury in millions of individuals worldwide. Some patients develop COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) and cannot be liberated from mechanical ventilation. Others may develop post-COVID fibrosis, resulting in substantial disability and need for long-term supplemental oxygen. In both of these situations, treatment teams often inquire about the possibility of lung transplantation. In fact, lung transplantation has been successfully employed for both CARDS and post-COVID fibrosis in a limited number of patients worldwide. Lung transplantation after COVID infection presents a number of unique challenges that transplant programs must consider. In those with severe CARDS, the inability to conduct proper psychosocial evaluation and pretransplantation education, marked deconditioning from critical illness, and infectious concerns regarding viral reactivation are major hurdles. In those with post-COVID fibrosis, our limited knowledge about the natural history of recovery after COVID-19 infection is problematic. Increased knowledge of the likelihood and degree of recovery after COVID-19 acute lung injury is essential for appropriate decision-making with regard to transplantation. Transplant physicians must weigh the risks and benefits of lung transplantation differently in a post-COVID fibrosis patient who is likely to remain stable or gradually improve in comparison with a patient with a known progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD). Clearly lung transplantation can be a life-saving therapeutic option for some patients with severe lung injury from COVID-19 infection. In this review, we discuss how lung transplant providers from a number of experienced centers approach lung transplantation for CARDS or post-COVID fibrosis.

Evidence for increased SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and COVID-19 severity related to pre-existing immunity to seasonal coronaviruses

Wratil et al. find specific antibody responses against seasonal human coronaviruses, which cause the common cold, to be elevated in patients with COVID-19 compared to pre-pandemic blood donors. This specific immunity is likely pre-existing in patients and increases their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 and severity of COVID-19.

Genomic epidemiology reveals multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 followed by community and nosocomial spread, Germany, February to May 2020.

BackgroundIn the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, viral genomes are available at unprecedented speed, but spatio-temporal bias in genome sequence sampling precludes phylogeographical inference without additional contextual data.AimWe applied genomic epidemiology to trace SARS-CoV-2 spread on an international, national and local level, to illustrate how transmission chains can be resolved to the level of a single event and single person using integrated sequence data and spatio-temporal metadata.MethodsWe investigated 289 COVID-19 cases at a university hospital in Munich, Germany, between 29 February and 27 May 2020. Using the ARTIC protocol, we obtained near full-length viral genomes from 174 SARS-CoV-2-positive respiratory samples. Phylogenetic analyses using the Auspice software were employed in combination with anamnestic reporting of travel history, interpersonal interactions and perceived high-risk exposures among patients and healthcare workers to characterise cluster outbreaks and establish likely scenarios and timelines of transmission.ResultsWe identified multiple independent introductions in the Munich Metropolitan Region during the first weeks of the first pandemic wave, mainly by travellers returning from popular skiing areas in the Alps. In these early weeks, the rate of presumable hospital-acquired infections among patients and in particular healthcare workers was high (9.6% and 54%, respectively) and we illustrated how transmission chains can be dissected at high resolution combining virus sequences and spatio-temporal networks of human interactions.ConclusionsEarly spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe was catalysed by superspreading events and regional hotspots during the winter holiday season. Genomic epidemiology can be employed to trace viral spread and inform effective containment strategies.

Clinical outcome, risk assessment, and seasonal variation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients-Results from the CORONA Germany study.

BACKGROUND: After one year of the pandemic and hints of seasonal patterns, temporal variations of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 are widely unknown. Additionally, heterogeneous data regarding clinical indicators predicting disease severity has been published. However, there is a need for a risk stratification model integrating the effects on disease severity and mortality to support clinical decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational, prospective, epidemiological cohort study at 45 hospitals in Germany. Until 1 January 2021, all hospitalized SARS CoV-2 positive patients were included. A comprehensive data set was collected in a cohort of seven hospitals. The primary objective was disease severity and prediction of mild, severe, and fatal cases. Ancillary analyses included a temporal analysis of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients for the entire year 2020. FINDINGS: A total of 4704 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized with a mortality rate of 19% (890/4704). Rates of mortality, need for ventilation, pneumonia, and respiratory insufficiency showed temporal variations, whereas age had a strong influence on the course of mortality. In cohort conducting analyses, prognostic factors for fatal/severe disease were: age (odds ratio (OR) 1.704, CI:[1.221-2.377]), respiratory rate (OR 1.688, CI:[1.222-2.333]), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (OR 1.312, CI:[1.015-1.695]), C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR 2.132, CI:[1.533-2.965]), and creatinine values (OR 2.573, CI:[1.593-4.154]. CONCLUSIONS: Age, respiratory rate, LDH, CRP, and creatinine at baseline are associated with all cause death, and need for ventilation/ICU treatment in a nationwide series of COVID 19 hospitalized patients. Especially age plays an important prognostic role. In-hospital mortality showed temporal variation during the year 2020, influenced by age. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04659187.