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).

Continuation of chronic antiplatelet therapy is not associated with increased need for transfusions: a cohort study in critically ill septic patients.

BACKGROUND: The decision to maintain or halt antiplatelet medication in septic patients admitted to intensive care units presents a clinical dilemma. This is due to the necessity to balance the benefits of preventing thromboembolic incidents and leveraging anti-inflammatory properties against the increased risk of bleeding. METHODS: This study involves a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study focusing on patients diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock. We evaluated the outcomes of 203 patients, examining mortality rates and the requirement for transfusion. The cohort was divided into two groups: those whose antiplatelet therapy was sustained (n = 114) and those in whom it was discontinued (n = 89). To account for potential biases such as indication for antiplatelet therapy, propensity score matching was employed. RESULTS: Therapy continuation did not significantly alter transfusion requirements (discontinued vs. continued in matched samples: red blood cell concentrates 51.7% vs. 68.3%, p = 0.09; platelet concentrates 21.7% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.82; fresh frozen plasma concentrates 38.3% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.7). 90-day survival was higher within the continued group (30.0% vs. 70.0%; p < 0.001) and the Log-rank test (7-day survivors; p = 0.001) as well as Cox regression (both matched samples) suggested an association between continuation of antiplatelet therapy < 7 days and survival (HR: 0.24, 95%-CI 0.10 to 0.63, p = 0.004). Sepsis severity expressed by the SOFA score did not differ significantly in matched and unmatched patients (both p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that continuing antiplatelet therapy in septic patients admitted to intensive care units could be associated with a significant survival benefit without substantially increasing the need for transfusion. These results highlight the importance of a nuanced approach to managing antiplatelet medication in the context of severe sepsis and septic shock.

The Greifswald Post COVID Rehabilitation Study and Research (PoCoRe)-Study Design, Characteristics and Evaluation Tools.

(1) Background: COVID-19 is often associated with significant long-term symptoms and disability, i.e., the long/post-COVID syndrome (PCS). Even after presumably mild COVID-19 infections, an increasing number of patients seek medical help for these long-term sequelae, which can affect various organ systems. The pathogenesis of PCS is not yet understood. Therapy has so far been limited to symptomatic treatment. The Greifswald Post COVID Rehabilitation Study (PoCoRe) aims to follow and deeply phenotype outpatients with PCS in the long term, taking a holistic and comprehensive approach to the analysis of their symptoms, signs and biomarkers. (2) Methods: Post-COVID outpatients are screened for symptoms in different organ systems with a standardized medical history, clinical examination, various questionnaires as well as physical and cardiopulmonary function tests. In addition, biomaterials are collected for the analysis of immunomodulators, cytokines, chemokines, proteome patterns as well as specific (auto)antibodies. Patients are treated according to their individual needs, adhering to the current standard of care. PoCoRe's overall aim is to optimize diagnostics and therapy in PCS patients.

Course of disease and risk factors for hospitalization in outpatients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We analyzed symptoms and comorbidities as predictors of hospitalization in 710 outpatients in North-East Germany with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the first 3 days of infection, commonly reported symptoms were fatigue (71.8%), arthralgia/myalgia (56.8%), headache (55.1%), and dry cough (51.8%). Loss of smell (anosmia), loss of taste (ageusia), dyspnea, and productive cough were reported with an onset of 4 days. Anosmia or ageusia were reported by only 18% of the participants at day one, but up to 49% between days 7 and 9. Not all participants who reported ageusia also reported anosmia. Individuals suffering from ageusia without anosmia were at highest risk of hospitalization (OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.5-18.1). They also experienced more commonly dyspnea and nausea (OR of 3.0, 2.9, respectively) suggesting pathophysiological connections between these symptoms. Other symptoms significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization were dyspnea, vomiting, and fever. Among basic parameters and comorbidities, age > 60 years, COPD, prior stroke, diabetes, kidney and cardiac diseases were also associated with increased risk of hospitalization. In conclusion, due to the delayed onset, ageusia and anosmia may be of limited use in differential diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. However, differentiation between ageusia and anosmia may be useful for evaluating risk for hospitalization.

A multifaceted educational intervention improved anti-infectious measures but had no effect on mortality in patients with severe sepsis.

Sepsis is a major reason for preventable hospital deaths. A cluster-randomized controlled trial on an educational intervention did not show improvements of sepsis management or outcome. We now aimed to test an improved implementation strategy in a second intervention phase in which new intervention hospitals (former controls) received a multifaceted educational intervention, while controls (former intervention hospitals) only received feedback of quality indicators. Changes in outcomes from the first to the second intervention phase were compared between groups using hierarchical generalized linear models controlling for possible confounders. During the two phases, 19 control hospitals included 4050 patients with sepsis and 21 intervention hospitals included 2526 patients. 28-day mortality did not show significant changes between study phases in both groups. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy within one hour increased in intervention hospitals, but not in control hospitals. Taking at least two sets of blood cultures increased significantly in both groups. During phase 2, intervention hospitals showed higher proportion of adequate initial antimicrobial therapy and de-escalation within 5 days. A survey among involved clinicians indicated lacking resources for quality improvement. Therefore, quality improvement programs should include all elements of sepsis guidelines and provide hospitals with sufficient resources for quality improvement.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01187134. Registered 23 August 2010, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01187134 .

Fever and hypothermia represent two populations of sepsis patients and are associated with outside temperature.

BACKGROUND: Fever and hypothermia have been observed in septic patients. Their influence on prognosis is subject to ongoing debates. METHODS: We did a secondary analysis of a large clinical dataset from a quality improvement trial. A binary logistic regression model was calculated to assess the association of the thermal response with outcome and a multinomial regression model to assess factors associated with fever or hypothermia. RESULTS: With 6542 analyzable cases we observed a bimodal temperature response characterized by fever or hypothermia, normothermia was rare. Hypothermia and high fever were both associated with higher lactate values. Hypothermia was associated with higher mortality, but this association was reduced after adjustment for other risk factors. Age, community-acquired sepsis, lower BMI and lower outside temperatures were associated with hypothermia while bacteremia and higher procalcitonin values were associated with high fever. CONCLUSIONS: Septic patients show either a hypothermic or a fever response. Whether hypothermia is a maladaptive response, as indicated by the higher mortality in hypothermic patients, or an adaptive response in patients with limited metabolic reserves under colder environmental conditions, remains an open question. Trial registration The original trial whose dataset was analyzed was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01187134) on August 23, 2010, the first patient was included on July 1, 2011.

Machine learning identifies ICU outcome predictors in a multicenter COVID-19 cohort.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Resources are heavily utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, risk stratification and prediction of SARS-CoV-2 patient clinical outcomes upon ICU admission remain inadequate. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model, based on retrospective & prospective clinical data, to stratify patient risk and predict ICU survival and outcomes. METHODS: A Germany-wide electronic registry was established to pseudonymously collect admission, therapeutic and discharge information of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients retrospectively and prospectively. Machine learning approaches were evaluated for the accuracy and interpretability of predictions. The Explainable Boosting Machine approach was selected as the most suitable method. Individual, non-linear shape functions for predictive parameters and parameter interactions are reported. RESULTS: 1039 patients were included in the Explainable Boosting Machine model, 596 patients retrospectively collected, and 443 patients prospectively collected. The model for prediction of general ICU outcome was shown to be more reliable to predict "survival". Age, inflammatory and thrombotic activity, and severity of ARDS at ICU admission were shown to be predictive of ICU survival. Patients' age, pulmonary dysfunction and transfer from an external institution were predictors for ECMO therapy. The interaction of patient age with D-dimer levels on admission and creatinine levels with SOFA score without GCS were predictors for renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Using Explainable Boosting Machine analysis, we confirmed and weighed previously reported and identified novel predictors for outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Using this strategy, predictive modeling of COVID-19 ICU patient outcomes can be performed overcoming the limitations of linear regression models. Trial registration "ClinicalTrials" (clinicaltrials.gov) under NCT04455451.

Anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies causing VITT do not cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a severe adverse effect of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 COVID-19 vaccine (Vaxzevria) and Janssen Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine, and it is associated with unusual thrombosis. VITT is caused by anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies activating platelets through their FcγRIIa receptors. Antibodies that activate platelets through FcγRIIa receptors have also been identified in patients with COVID-19. These findings raise concern that vaccination-induced antibodies against anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein cause thrombosis by cross-reacting with PF4. Immunogenic epitopes of PF4 and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were compared using in silico prediction tools and 3D modeling. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and PF4 share at least 1 similar epitope. Reactivity of purified anti-PF4 antibodies from patients with VITT was tested against recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. However, none of the affinity-purified anti-PF4 antibodies from 14 patients with VITT cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Sera from 222 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed patients with COVID-19 from 5 European centers were tested by PF4-heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and PF4-dependent platelet activation assays. We found anti-PF4 antibodies in sera from 19 (8.6%) of 222 patients with COVID-19. However, only 4 showed weak to moderate platelet activation in the presence of PF4, and none of those patients developed thrombotic complications. Among 10 (4.5%) of 222 patients who had COVID-19 with thrombosis, none showed PF4-dependent platelet-activating antibodies. In conclusion, antibodies against PF4 induced by vaccination do not cross-react with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, indicating that the intended vaccine-induced immune response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not the trigger of VITT. PF4-reactive antibodies found in patients with COVID-19 in this study were not associated with thrombotic complications.

Frequency of positive anti-PF4/polyanion antibody tests after COVID-19 vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2.

Vaccination using the adenoviral vector COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) has been associated with rare vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Affected patients test strongly positive in platelet factor 4 (PF4)/polyanion enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), and serum-induced platelet activation is maximal in the presence of PF4. We determined the frequency of anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies in healthy vaccinees and assessed whether PF4/polyanion EIA+ sera exhibit platelet-activating properties after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n = 138) or BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer; n = 143). In total, 19 of 281 participants tested positive for anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies postvaccination (All: 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.4-10.3]; BNT162b2: 5.6% [95% CI, 2.9-10.7]; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 8.0% [95% CI, 4.5% to 13.7%]). Optical densities were mostly low (between 0.5 and 1.0 units; reference range, <0.50), and none of the PF4/polyanion EIA+ samples induced platelet activation in the presence of PF4. We conclude that positive PF4/polyanion EIAs can occur after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination with both messenger RNA- and adenoviral vector-based vaccines, but many of these antibodies likely have minor (if any) clinical relevance. Accordingly, low-titer positive PF4/polyanion EIA results should be interpreted with caution when screening asymptomatic individuals after vaccination against COVID-19. Pathogenic platelet-activating antibodies that cause VITT do not occur commonly following vaccination.

Randomized controlled multicentre study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Albumin is a key regulator of fluid distribution within the extracellular space and has several properties beyond its oncotic activity. The accumulating evidence suggests that supplementation of albumin may provide survival advantages only when the insult is severe as in patients with septic shock. METHODS/DESIGN: The randomized controlled multicentre study of albumin replacement therapy in septic shock (ARISS) investigates whether the replacement with albumin and the maintenance of its serum levels of at least 30 g/l for 28 days improve survival in patients with septic shock compared to resuscitation and volume maintenance without albumin. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with septic shock are randomly assigned within a maximum of 24 h after the onset of septic shock after obtaining informed consents to treatment or control groups. Patients assigned to the treatment group receive a 60-g loading dose of human albumin 20% over 2-3 h. Serum albumin levels are maintained at least at 30 g/l in the ICU for a maximum of 28 days following randomization using 40-80 g human albumin 20% infusion. The control group is treated according to the usual practice with crystalloids as the first choice for the resuscitation and maintenance phase of septic shock. The primary endpoint is 90 days mortality and secondary endpoints include 28-day, 60-day, ICU, and in-hospital mortality, organ dysfunction/failure, total amount of fluid administration and total fluid balance in the ICU, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay. In total, 1412 patients need to be analysed, 706 per group. For the sample size estimation, a 15% reduction in 90-day mortality is assumed, i.e. an absolute reduction of 7.5% points to 42.5% (relative risk 1.18). Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 1662 patients need to be allocated. DISCUSSION: The results of the clinical trial may influence the treatment of patients with septic shock. The expected improvement in patient survival may result in a reduction in the resources currently used in the treatment of these patients and in the socioeconomic burden of this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03869385 . Registration on 18 July 2019. Protocol version: Final 3.0.

On-site blood culture incubation shortens the time to knowledge of positivity and microbiological results in septic patients.

INTRODUCTION: To determine whether on-site incubation of blood cultures at the intensive care unit (ICU) improves not only the time to incubation but also time to positivity, time to knowledge of positivity and time to results (identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing). METHODS: This observational single-centre study in ICU patients with severe sepsis and septic shock investigated the impact of blood culture incubation immediately on-site at the ICU (ICU group) by comparison with traditional processing in a remote laboratory (LAB group) on different time intervals of blood culture diagnostics from obtaining blood to clinician notification of final result. The effect of on-site incubation was evaluated in Kaplan-Meier estimates for the time to positivity, time to knowledge of positivity and time to microbiological results and a linear mixed model was built. RESULTS: A total of 3,549 blood culture sets from 657 ICU patients were analysed: 2,381 in the LAB group and 1,168 in the ICU group. Overall, 660 (18.6%) blood culture sets were positive and 2,889 (81.4%) sets remained negative. On-site incubation was associated with reduced time to knowledge of positivity (46.9 h [CI 43.4-50.8 h] vs. 28.0 h [CI 23.6-32.2 h], p < 0.001) and reduced time to result (61.4 h [CI 58.4-64.8 h] vs. 42.1 h [CI 39.1-47.5 h], p < 0.001). In blood cultures processed instantaneously at the ICU compared to incubation in the remote laboratory within 4 h, the time to microbiological result was significantly reduced by 8.5 h (p < 0.001). Pre-existing anti-infective therapy had no significant impact on diagnostic time intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Instantaneous incubation of blood cultures in the ICU compared to incubation in a remote laboratory significantly improves time to knowledge to positivity and time to result. These effects are even more pronounced during off-hours of the microbiological laboratory. The results underline the importance of 24/7 diagnostics to provide round-the-clock processing of blood culture samples in patients with sepsis and septic shock and an immediate to communication of the results to the clinicians.

Do Sepsis-3 Criteria Facilitate Earlier Recognition of Sepsis and Septic Shock? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: New Sepsis-3 criteria are supposed to "facilitate earlier recognition … of patients with sepsis." To test this, we performed novel and direct comparisons of Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria with respect to time differences of sepsis onset. METHODS: In a cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients prospectively diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock according to Sepsis-1 criteria between 01/2010 and 12/2015, the time differences between meeting Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria as time of sepsis onset and the corresponding differences in illness severity were tested. Similar comparisons were performed for septic shock subset meeting different Sepsis-1 vs. Sepsis-3 criteria. Patients with non-ICU-acquired sepsis and patients with sepsis onset more than 48 h postadmission (ICU-acquired sepsis) were analyzed separately to account for differences in availability of routinely collected organ dysfunction data. RESULTS: A total of 10,905 ICU patients were screened; 862 patients met Sepsis-1 criteria, of whom 834 (97%) also met Sepsis-3 criteria. In patients, admitted to the ICU with sepsis, Sepsis-3 criteria compared with Sepsis-1 criteria were more frequently fulfilled within the first 3 h (84% vs. 75%, P < 0.001).In patients with ICU-acquired sepsis, sepsis onset was in 50% at least 1 day earlier after application of Sepsis-3 (P = 0.011). These patients were systemic inflammatory response syndrome negative at the earlier sepsis onset, but suffered already from organ dysfunction. Sepsis-3 criteria were timely in 86% and 1 day delayed in 7%. Only 7% (8 patients) did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria in this group. These patients had already an increased SOFA score and did develop neither a further increase nor the new septic shock criteria. Classification according to Sepsis-3 reduced the proportion of septic shock (51% vs. 75%, P < 0.001).Twenty-eight-day mortality was 38% for new septic shock compared with 33% of Sepsis-1 septic shock (P > 0.05). Patients not detected by Sepsis-3 had a 28-day mortality of 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis-3 criteria facilitate an earlier and more predictive recognition of sepsis and septic shock in patients with non-ICU and ICU-acquired sepsis primarily diagnosed by Sepsis-1 criteria. These results require further validation with prospectively collected data.

Effect of a multifaceted educational intervention for anti-infectious measures on sepsis mortality: a cluster randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend administering antibiotics within 1 h of sepsis recognition but this recommendation remains untested by randomized trials. This trial was set up to investigate whether survival is improved by reducing the time before initiation of antimicrobial therapy by means of a multifaceted intervention in compliance with guideline recommendations. METHODS: The MEDUSA study, a prospective multicenter cluster-randomized trial, was conducted from July 2011 to July 2013 in 40 German hospitals. Hospitals were randomly allocated to receive conventional continuous medical education (CME) measures (control group) or multifaceted interventions including local quality improvement teams, educational outreach, audit, feedback, and reminders. We included 4183 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in an intention-to-treat analysis comparing the multifaceted intervention (n = 2596) with conventional CME (n = 1587). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The 28-day mortality was 35.1% (883 of 2596 patients) in the intervention group and 26.7% (403 of 1587 patients; p = 0.01) in the control group. The intervention was not a risk factor for mortality, since this difference was present from the beginning of the study and remained unaffected by the intervention. Median time to antimicrobial therapy was 1.5 h (interquartile range 0.1-4.9 h) in the intervention group and 2.0 h (0.4-5.9 h; p = 0.41) in the control group. The risk of death increased by 2% per hour delay of antimicrobial therapy and 1% per hour delay of source control, independent of group assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Delay in antimicrobial therapy and source control was associated with increased mortality but the multifaceted approach was unable to change time to antimicrobial therapy in this setting and did not affect survival.