Comparative analysis of characteristics and outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients infected with different SARS-CoV-2 variants between January 2020 and April 2022 - A retrospective single-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the roll-out of vaccines and therapeutic agents, as well as the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants, have shown significant effects on disease severity. METHODS: Patients hospitalized at our center between January 2020 and April 2022 were attributed to subgroups depending on which SARS-CoV-2 variant was predominantly circulating in Germany: (i) Wild-type: January 1, 2020, to March 7, 2021, (ii) Alpha variant: August 3, 2021, to June 27, 2021, (iii) Delta variant: June 28, 2021, to December 26, 2021, and (iv) Omicron variant: December 27, 2021, to April 30, 2022. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and April 2022, 1500 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections were admitted to the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. The rate of patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) decreased from 31.2% (n = 223) in the wild-type group, 28.5% (n = 72) in the Alpha variant group, 18.8% (n = 67) in the Delta variant group, and 13.4% (n = 135) in the Omicron variant group. Also, in-hospital mortality decreased from 20.6% (n = 111) in the wild-type group, 17.5% (n = 30) in the Alpha variant group, 16.8% (n = 33) in the Delta variant group, and 6.6% (n = 39) in the Omicron variant group. The median duration of hospitalization was similar in all subgroups and ranged between 11 and 15 days throughout the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality and rate of ICU admission among hospitalized COVID-19 patients steadily decreased throughout the pandemic. However, the practically unchanged duration of hospitalization demonstrates the persistent burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system.

Multi-dimensional and longitudinal systems profiling reveals predictive pattern of severe COVID-19.

COVID-19 is a respiratory tract infection that can affect multiple organ systems. Predicting the severity and clinical outcome of individual patients is a major unmet clinical need that remains challenging due to intra- and inter-patient variability. Here, we longitudinally profiled and integrated more than 150 clinical, laboratory, and immunological parameters of 173 patients with mild to fatal COVID-19. Using systems biology, we detected progressive dysregulation of multiple parameters indicative of organ damage that correlated with disease severity, particularly affecting kidneys, hepatobiliary system, and immune landscape. By performing unsupervised clustering and trajectory analysis, we identified T and B cell depletion as early indicators of a complicated disease course. In addition, markers of hepatobiliary damage emerged as robust predictor of lethal outcome in critically ill patients. This allowed us to propose a novel clinical COVID-19 SeveriTy (COST) score that distinguishes complicated disease trajectories and predicts lethal outcome in critically ill patients.

Patient Characteristics and Clinical Course of COVID-19 Patients Treated at a German Tertiary Center during the First and Second Waves in the Year 2020.

In this study, we directly compared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients hospitalized during the first (27 February-28 July 2020) and second (29 July-31 December 2020) wave of the pandemic at a large tertiary center in northern Germany. Patients who presented during the first (n = 174) and second (n = 331) wave did not differ in age (median [IQR], 59 years [46, 71] vs. 58 years [42, 73]; p = 0.82) or age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (median [IQR], 2 [1, 4] vs. 2 [0, 4]; p = 0.50). During the second wave, a higher proportion of patients were treated as outpatients (11% [n = 20] vs. 20% [n = 67]), fewer patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (43% [n = 75] vs. 29% [n = 96]), and duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter (median days [IQR], 14 [8, 34] vs. 11 [5, 19]; p < 0.001). However, in-hospital mortality was high throughout the pandemic and did not differ between the two periods (16% [n = 27] vs. 16% [n = 54]; p = 0.89). While novel treatment strategies and increased knowledge about the clinical management of COVID-19 may have resulted in a less severe disease course in some patients, in-hospital mortality remained unaltered at a high level. These findings highlight the unabated need for efforts to hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, to increase vaccination coverage, and to develop novel treatment strategies to prevent mortality and decrease morbidity.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and disease outcome of COVID-19 and seasonal influenza.

While several studies have described the clinical course of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), direct comparisons with patients with seasonal influenza are scarce. We compared 166 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between February 27 and June 14, 2020, and 255 patients with seasonal influenza diagnosed during the 2017-18 season at the same hospital to describe common features and differences in clinical characteristics and course of disease. Patients with COVID-19 were younger (median age [IQR], 59 [45-71] vs 66 [52-77]; P < 0001) and had fewer comorbidities at baseline with a lower mean overall age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (mean [SD], 3.0 [2.6] vs 4.0 [2.7]; P < 0.001) than patients with seasonal influenza. COVID-19 patients had a longer duration of hospitalization (mean [SD], 25.9 days [26.6 days] vs 17.2 days [21.0 days]; P = 0.002), a more frequent need for oxygen therapy (101 [60.8%] vs 103 [40.4%]; P < 0.001) and invasive ventilation (52 [31.3%] vs 32 [12.5%]; P < 0.001) and were more frequently admitted to the intensive care unit (70 [42.2%] vs 51 [20.0%]; P < 0.001) than seasonal influenza patients. Among immunocompromised patients, those in the COVID-19 group had a higher hospital mortality compared to those in the seasonal influenza group (13 [33.3%] vs 8 [11.6%], P = 0.01). In conclusion, we show that COVID-19 patients were younger and had fewer baseline comorbidities than seasonal influenza patients but were at increased risk for severe illness. The high mortality observed in immunocompromised COVID-19 patients emphasizes the importance of protecting these patient groups from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Digital telemedicine interventions for patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of digital telemedicine interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and hand searching. The search included articles from inception to 19 April 2019 without language restrictions. The search was updated on 7 June 2020 without additional findings. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective interventional studies reporting multimorbid participants employing interventions with at least one digital telemedicine component were included. Primary outcomes were patient physical or mental health outcomes, health-related quality of life scores and the utilisation of health services. RESULTS: Out of 5865 studies initially identified, 7 articles, reporting on 6 studies were retained (total of 699 participants). Four of these studies reported interventions including integration with usual care, two studies had interventions with no links to usual patient care. Follow-up periods lasted between 2 and 6 months. Among the studies with links to usual care, the primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP) (three studies), haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (three studies), total cholesterol (two studies) and self-perceived health status (one study). The evidence ranged from very low to moderate certainty. Meta-analysis showed a moderate decrease in SBP (8 mm Hg (95% CI 4.6 to 11.4)), a small to moderate decrease in HbA1c (0.46 mg/dL (95% CI 0.25 to 0.67)) and moderate decrease in total cholesterol (cholesterol 16.5 mg/dL (95% CI 8.1 to 25.0)) in the intervention groups. There was an absence of evidence for self-perceived health status. Among the studies with no links to usual care, time to hospitalisation (median time to hospitalisation 113.4 days intervention and 104.7 days control group, absolute difference 12.7 days) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (intervention group 35.2 score points, control group 23.9 points, absolute difference 11.3, 95% CI 5.5 to 17.1) showed small reductions. The Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) showed no evidence of improvement (intervention 7.6 points, control 8.6 points, difference 1.0 points, 95% CI -22.9% to 11.9%). CONCLUSION: Digital telemedicine interventions provided moderate evidence of improvements in measures of disease control but little evidence and no demonstrated benefits on health status. Further research is needed with clear descriptions of conditions, interventions and outcomes based on patients' and healthcare providers' preferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134872.

Clinical evaluation of five different automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The global market for SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays is becoming ever more crowded with antibody-tests of various formats, targets and technologies, careful evaluation is crucial for understanding the implications of individual test results. Here, we evaluate the clinical performance of five automated immunoassays on a set of clinical samples. METHODS: Serum/plasma samples of 75 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 320 pre-pandemic serum samples of healthy blood donors were subjected to two IgG and three total antibody SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays. All test setups were automated workflows. RESULTS: Positivity of assays (onset of symptoms > 10 days) ranged between 68.4 % and 81.6 % (Diasorin 68.4 %, Euroimmun 70.3 %, Siemens 73.7 %, Roche 79.0 % and Wantai 81.6 %). All examined assays demonstrated high specificity of >99 % (Euroimmun, Diasorin: 99.1 %, Wantai: 99.4 %) but only two reached levels above 99.5 % (Roche: 99.7 %, Siemens 100 %). Interestingly, there was no overlap in false positive results between the assays. The strongest correlation of quantitative results was observed between the Diasorin and Euroimmun IgG tests (r2 = 0.76). Overall, we observed no difference in the distribution of test results between female and male patients (p-values: 0.18-0.87). A significant difference between severely versus critically ill patients was demonstrated for the Euroimmun, Diasorin, Wantai and Siemens assays (p-values:0.041). CONCLUSION: All assays showed good clinical performance. Our data confirm that orthogonal test strategies as recommended by the CDC can enhance clinical specificity. However, the suboptimal rates of test positivity found at time of hospitalization in this cohort underline the importance of molecular diagnostics to rule out/confirm active infection with SARS-CoV-2.

[Management of seasonal influenza in 2017/2018 at a German tertiary-care hospital]. / Management der saisonalen Influenza 2017/2018: Erfahrungen an einem deutschen Universitätsklinikum.

BACKGROUND: There are only few structured reports on inpatient management of a seasonal influenza epidemic. OBJECTIVES: A systematic description of a seasonal influenza patient population at a German university hospital to improve risk stratification and clinical care. METHODS: In this monocentric, retrospective observational study of the 2017/2018 influenza season at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, patients with confirmed influenza infection were included. RESULTS: Of all influenza swabs performed in the emergency department, 24% (n = 162/676) were positive. A total of 255 patients (median age 66 years) had an influenza infection (influenza A n = 79, influenza B n = 176); 27 (15.3%) were nosocomial infections. Of the 179 (70.2%) patients that were hospitalized, 51 (20%) received intensive medical care. Patients with subsequent need for intensive care had an elevated CRP level (69.5 mg/dl [SD 62.8] vs. 141.7 [SD 127.2] mg/dl) at the time of influenza diagnosis and more frequent infiltrates in X­ray/CT of the thorax (n = 43 [33.6%] vs. n = 43 [84.3%]). Antiviral therapy with oseltamivir was administered for 74 (29.0%) patients and 11 (6.1%) patients were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Of the 23 (9.0%) patients who died, only four of them had been vaccinated (trivalent). Those four had an influenza B infection. CONCLUSION: The structured use of diagnostic tests (influenza PCR, X­ray/CT chest and CRP) and antiviral therapy (oseltamivir) as well as targeted management of admission, intensive care capacities, and an increase in vaccination rates are important for improving patient care and optimizing the use of resources during seasonal influenza epidemics.