Outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalised immunocompromised patients: An analysis of the WHO ISARIC CCP-UK prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with immunocompetent patients. However, previous studies have been contradictory. We aimed to determine whether immunocompromised patients were at greater risk of in-hospital death and how this risk changed over the pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included patients > = 19 years with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK prospective cohort study. We defined immunocompromise as immunosuppressant medication preadmission, cancer treatment, organ transplant, HIV, or congenital immunodeficiency. We used logistic regression to compare the risk of death in both groups, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, vaccination, and comorbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. Between 17 January 2020 and 28 February 2022, we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. In total, 29% (n = 6,499) of immunocompromised and 21% (n = 28,608) of immunocompetent patients died in hospital. The odds of in-hospital mortality were elevated for immunocompromised patients (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI [1.39, 1.50], p < 0.001). Not all immunocompromising conditions had the same risk, for example, patients on active cancer treatment were less likely to have their care escalated to intensive care (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI [0.7, 0.85], p < 0.001) or ventilation (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.56, 0.76], p < 0.001). However, cancer patients were more likely to die (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI [1.87, 2.15], p < 0.001). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidities, and vaccination status. As the pandemic progressed, in-hospital mortality reduced more slowly for immunocompromised patients than for immunocompetent patients. This was particularly evident with increasing age: the probability of the reduction in hospital mortality being less for immunocompromised patients aged 50 to 69 years was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80 years was 99% for men and 98% for women. The study is limited by a lack of detailed drug data prior to admission, including steroid doses, meaning that we may have incorrectly categorised some immunocompromised patients as immunocompetent. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses, monoclonal antibodies, and nonpharmaceutical preventive interventions should be continually encouraged for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 66726260.

Systematic comparison of ranking aggregation methods for gene lists in experimental results.

MOTIVATION: A common experimental output in biomedical science is a list of genes implicated in a given biological process or disease. The gene lists resulting from a group of studies answering the same, or similar, questions can be combined by ranking aggregation methods to find a consensus or a more reliable answer. Evaluating a ranking aggregation method on a specific type of data before using it is required to support the reliability since the property of a dataset can influence the performance of an algorithm. Such evaluation on gene lists is usually based on a simulated database because of the lack of a known truth for real data. However, simulated datasets tend to be too small compared to experimental data and neglect key features, including heterogeneity of quality, relevance and the inclusion of unranked lists. RESULTS: In this study, a group of existing methods and their variations that are suitable for meta-analysis of gene lists are compared using simulated and real data. Simulated data were used to explore the performance of the aggregation methods as a function of emulating the common scenarios of real genomic data, with various heterogeneity of quality, noise level and a mix of unranked and ranked data using 20 000 possible entities. In addition to the evaluation with simulated data, a comparison using real genomic data on the SARS-CoV-2 virus, cancer (non-small cell lung cancer) and bacteria (macrophage apoptosis) was performed. We summarize the results of our evaluation in a simple flowchart to select a ranking aggregation method, and in an automated implementation using the meta-analysis by information content algorithm to infer heterogeneity of data quality across input datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code for simulated data generation and running edited version of algorithms: https://github.com/baillielab/comparison_of_RA_methods. Code to perform an optimal selection of methods based on the results of this review, using the MAIC algorithm to infer the characteristics of an input dataset, can be downloaded here: https://github.com/baillielab/maic. An online service for running MAIC: https://baillielab.net/maic. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Dynamic data-driven meta-analysis for prioritisation of host genes implicated in COVID-19.

The increasing body of literature describing the role of host factors in COVID-19 pathogenesis demonstrates the need to combine diverse, multi-omic data to evaluate and substantiate the most robust evidence and inform development of therapies. Here we present a dynamic ranking of host genes implicated in human betacoronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, seasonal coronaviruses). We conducted an extensive systematic review of experiments identifying potential host factors. Gene lists from diverse sources were integrated using Meta-Analysis by Information Content (MAIC). This previously described algorithm uses data-driven gene list weightings to produce a comprehensive ranked list of implicated host genes. From 32 datasets, the top ranked gene was PPIA, encoding cyclophilin A, a druggable target using cyclosporine. Other highly-ranked genes included proposed prognostic factors (CXCL10, CD4, CD3E) and investigational therapeutic targets (IL1A) for COVID-19. Gene rankings also inform the interpretation of COVID-19 GWAS results, implicating FYCO1 over other nearby genes in a disease-associated locus on chromosome 3. Researchers can search and review the gene rankings and the contribution of different experimental methods to gene rank at https://baillielab.net/maic/covid19 . As new data are published we will regularly update the list of genes as a resource to inform and prioritise future studies.