Comparison of outcomes and characteristics of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 and other community-acquired pneumonia based on propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the similarities and differences between patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and those with other community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), utilizing propensity score matching (PSM), regarding hospitalization expenses, treatment options, and prognostic outcomes, aiming to inform the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted to the ICU of the Third People's Hospital of Datong City, diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 2022 to February 2023, constituted the observation group, while those with other CAP admitted from January to November 2022 formed the control group. Basic information, clinical data at admission, and time from symptom onset to admission were matched using PSM. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the COVID-19 group and 119 in the CAP group. The patients were matched by the propensity matching method, and 37 patients were included in each of the last two groups. After matching, COVID-19 had a higher failure rate than CAP, but the difference was not statistically significant (73% vs. 51%, p = 0.055). The utilization rate of antiviral drugs (40% vs. 11%, p = 0.003), γ-globulin (19% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and prone position ventilation (PPV) (27% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) in patients with COVID-19 were higher than those in the CAP, and the differences were statistically significant. The total hospitalization cost of COVID-19 patients was lower than that of CAP patients, and the difference was statistically significant (27889.5 vs. 50175.9, p = 0.007). The hospital stay for COVID-19 patients was shorter than for CAP patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (10.9 vs. 16.6, p = 0.071). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that limited medical resources influenced patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing substantial demands for ICU capacity and medications during this period could have potentially reduced the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients.

Effect of high-dose Spirulina supplementation on hospitalized adults with COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial.

Objective: Spirulina (arthrospira platensis) is a cyanobacterium proven to have anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and antioxidant effects. However, the effect of high-dose Spirulina supplementation on hospitalized adults with COVID-19 is currently unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose Spirulina platensis for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Study Design: We conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving 189 patients with COVID-19 who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an experimental group that received 15.2g of Spirulina supplement plus standard treatment (44 non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) and 47 ICU), or to a control group that received standard treatment alone (46 non-ICU and 52 ICU). The study was conducted over six days. Immune mediators were monitored on days 1, 3, 5, and 7. The primary outcome of this study was mortality or hospital discharge within seven days, while the overall discharge or mortality was considered the secondary outcome. Results: Within seven days, there were no deaths in the Spirulina group, while 15 deaths (15.3%) occurred in the control group. Moreover, within seven days, there was a greater number of patients discharged in the Spirulina group (97.7%) in non-ICU compared to the control group (39.1%) (HR, 6.52; 95% CI, 3.50 to 12.17). Overall mortality was higher in the control group (8.7% non-ICU, 28.8% ICU) compared to the Spirulina group (non-ICU HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.97; ICU, HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.48). In non-ICU, patients who received Spirulina showed a significant reduction in the levels of IL-6, TNF-α, IL-10, and IP-10 as intervention time increased. Furthermore, in ICU, patients who received Spirulina showed a significant decrease in the levels of MIP-1α and IL-6. IFN-γ levels were significantly higher in the intervention group in both ICU and non-ICU subgroups as intervention time increased. No side effects related to Spirulina supplements were observed during the trial. Conclusion: High-dose Spirulina supplements coupled with the standard treatment of COVID-19 may improve recovery and remarkably reduce mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: https://irct.ir/trial/54375, Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials number (IRCT20210216050373N1).

Individual and contextual factors associated with the survival of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome by COVID-19 in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of individual and contextual factors of the hospital and the municipality of care on the survival of patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome due to COVID-19. METHODS: Hospital cohort study with data from 159,948 adults and elderly with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome due to COVID-19 hospitalized from January 1 to December 31, 2022 and reported in the Influenza Epidemiological Surveillance Information System. The contextual variables were related to the structure, professionals and equipment of the hospital establishments and socioeconomic and health indicators of the municipalities. The outcome was hospital survival up to 90 days. Survival tree and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: Hospital lethality was 30.4%. Elderly patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation and were hospitalized in cities with low tax collection rates had lower survival rates compared to other groups identified in the survival tree (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The study indicated the interaction of contextual factors with the individual ones, and it shows that hospital and municipal characteristics increase the risk of death, highlighting the attention to the organization, operation, and performance of the hospital network.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on Covid-19 incidence and mortality in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Given the waning of vaccine effectiveness and the shifting of the most dominant strains in the U.S., it is imperative to understand the association between vaccination coverage and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease and mortality at the community levels and whether that association might vary according to the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strains in the U.S. METHODS: Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate associations between U.S. county-level cumulative vaccination rates and booster distribution and the daily change in county-wide Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) risks and mortality during Alpha, Delta and Omicron predominance. Models were adjusted for potential confounders at both county and state level. A 2-week lag and a 4-week lag were introduced to assess vaccination rate impact on incidence and mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Among 3,073 counties in 48 states, the average county population complete vaccination rate of all age groups was 50.79% as of March 11th, 2022. Each percentage increase in vaccination rates was associated with reduction of 4% (relative risk (RR) 0.9607 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9553, 0.9661)) and 3% (RR 0.9694 (95% CI: 0.9653, 0.9736)) in county-wide COVID-19 cases and mortality, respectively, when Alpha was the dominant variant. The associations between county-level vaccine rates and COVID-19 incidence diminished during the Delta and Omicron predominance. However, each percent increase in people receiving a booster shot was associated with reduction of 6% (RR 0.9356 (95% CI: 0.9235, 0.9479)) and 4% (RR 0.9595 (95% CI: 0.9431, 0.9761)) in COVID-19 incidence and mortality in the community, respectively, during the Omicron predominance. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between complete vaccination rates and COVID-19 incidence and mortality appeared to vary with shifts in the dominant variant, perhaps due to variations in vaccine efficacy by variant or to waning vaccine immunity over time. Vaccine boosters were associated with notable protection against Omicron disease and mortality.

Brief report: Effect of cardiac multi-morbidity on COVID hospitalization outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched healthcare resources thin and led to significant morbidity and mortality. There have been no studies utilizing national data to investigate the role of cardiac risk factors on outcomes of COVID hospitalizations. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of cardiac multimorbidity on healthcare utilization and outcomes among COVID hospitalizations during the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Using the national inpatient sample (NIS), we identified all adult hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of COVID in 2020, using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (ICD010-CM). Coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, previous stroke, and atrial fibrillation were then identified as cardiac comorbidities using ICD-10-CM codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of cardiac multimorbidity on mortality and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: We identified 1,005,040 primary COVID admissions in 2020. Of these admissions, 216,545 (20.6%) had CAD, 413,195 (39.4%) had DM, 176,780 (16.8%) had HF, 159,700 (15.2%) had AF, 30735 (2.9%) had PVD, and 25,155 (2.4%) had a previous stroke. When stratified by number of comorbidities, 428390 (40.8%) had 0 comorbidities, 354960 (33.8%) had 1, 161225 (15.4%) had 2, and 105465 (10.0%) had 3+ comorbidities. COVID hospitalizations with higher cardiac multimorbidity had higher mortality rates (p<0.001) higher MV rates (p<0.001). In our multivariable regression, these associations remained with increasing odds for mortality with each stepwise increase in cardiac multimorbidity (1: OR 1.48 (1.45-1.50); 2: OR 2.13 (2.09-2.17); 3+: OR 2.43 (2.38-2.48), p<0.001, all). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first national examination of the impact of cardiac comorbidities on COVID outcomes. A higher number of cardiac comorbidities was associated with significantly higher rates of MV and in-hospital mortality, independent of age. Future, more granular, and longitudinal studies are needed to further examine these associations.

Association of socioeconomic disadvantage and ethnicity with perinatal neonatal, and infant mortality in Slovakia.

BACKGROUND: Infant mortality rates are reliable indices of the child and general population health status and health care delivery. The most critical factors affecting infant mortality are socioeconomic status and ethnicity. The aim of this study was to assess the association between socioeconomic disadvantage, ethnicity, and perinatal, neonatal, and infant mortality in Slovakia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The associations between socioeconomic disadvantage (educational level, long-term unemployment rate), ethnicity (the proportion of the Roma population) and mortality (perinatal, neonatal, and infant) in the period 2017-2022 were explored, using linear regression models. RESULTS: The higher proportion of people with only elementary education and long-term unemployed, as well as the higher proportion of the Roma population, increases mortality rates. The proportion of the Roma population had the most significant impact on mortality in the selected period between 2017 and 2022, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022). CONCLUSIONS: Life in segregated Roma settlements is connected with the accumulation of socioeconomic disadvantage. Persistent inequities between Roma and the majority population in Slovakia exposed by mortality rates in children point to the vulnerabilities and exposures which should be adequately addressed by health and social policies.

COVID-19 disease in children and adolescents following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A report from the Turkish pediatric bone marrow transplantation study group.

BACKGROUND: Data on the risk factors and outcomes for pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to analyze the clinical signs, risk factors, and outcomes for ICU admission and mortality in a large pediatric cohort who underwent allogeneic HSCT prior to COVID-19 infection. METHOD: In this nationwide study, we retrospectively reviewed the data of 184 pediatric HSCT recipients who had COVID-19 between March 2020 and August 2022. RESULTS: The median time from HSCT to COVID-19 infection was 209.0 days (IQR, 111.7-340.8; range, 0-3845 days). The most common clinical manifestation was fever (58.7%). While most patients (78.8%) had asymptomatic/mild disease, the disease severity was moderate in 9.2% and severe and critical in 4.4% and 7.6%, respectively. The overall mortality was 10.9% (n: 20). Deaths were attributable to COVID-19 in nine (4.9%) patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) (OR, 23.20, p: .001) and lymphopenia at diagnosis (OR, 5.21, p: .006) were risk factors for ICU admission and that HSCT from a mismatched donor (OR, 54.04, p: .028), multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) (OR, 31.07, p: .003), and LRTD (OR, 10.11, p: .035) were associated with a higher risk for COVID-19-related mortality. CONCLUSION: While COVID-19 is mostly asymptomatic or mild in pediatric transplant recipients, it can cause ICU admission in those with LRTD or lymphopenia at diagnosis and may be more fatal in those who are transplanted from a mismatched donor and those who develop MIS-C or LRTD.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir and sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, medRxiv, and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant evidence up to December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). RESULTS: Our search identified and included 13 studies involving 16166 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between the molnupiravir and sotrovimab groups in terms of the mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 3.70). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of hospitalization rate (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.06), death or hospitalization rate (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.81, 2.83), and intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.07, 4.84). In terms of safety, molnupiravir was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.30). CONCLUSION: The current findings indicate that sotrovimab may be more effective than molnupiravir in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. However, no statistical difference was observed between the two treatments for other effectiveness outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these findings was rated as low or moderate. Further research is required to provide a better comparison of these interventions in treating COVID-19 patients.

Real life experience on the use of Remdesivir in patients admitted to COVID-19 in two referral Italian hospital: a propensity score matched analysis.

Remdesivir (RDV) was the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for COVID-19, with discordant data on efficacy in reducing mortality risk and disease progression. In the context of a dynamic and rapidly changing pandemic landscape, the utilization of real-world evidence is of utmost importance. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of RDV on patients who have been admitted to two university referral hospitals in Italy due to COVID-19. All patients older than 18 years and hospitalized at two different universities (Bari and Palermo) were enrolled in this study. To minimize the effect of potential confounders, we used propensity score matching with one case (Remdesivir) and one control that never experienced this kind of intervention during hospitalization. Mortality was the primary outcome of our investigation, and it was recorded using death certificates and/or medical records. Severe COVID-19 was defined as admission to the intensive care unit or a qSOFAscore ≥ 2 or CURB65scores ≥ 3. After using propensity score matching, 365 patients taking Remdesivir and 365 controls were included. No significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of mean age and percentage of females, while patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently active smokers (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the patients taking Remdesivir were less frequently vaccinated against COVID-19. All the other clinical, radiological, and pharmacological parameters were balanced between the two groups. The use of Remdesivir in our cohort was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality during the follow-up period (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.86; p = 0.007). Moreover, RDV was associated with a significantly lower incidence of non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.36). Furthermore, in the 365 patients taking Remdesivir, we observed two cases of mild renal failure requiring a reduction in the dosage of Remdesivir and two cases in which the physicians decided to interrupt Remdesivir for bradycardia and for QT elongation. Our study suggests that the use of Remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is a safe therapy associated with improved clinical outcomes, including halving of mortality and with a reduction of around 75% of the risk of invasive ventilation. In a constantly changing COVID-19 scenario, ongoing research is necessary to tailor treatment decisions based on the latest scientific evidence and optimize patient outcomes.

Abatacept Pharmacokinetics and Exposure Response in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Secondary Analysis of the ACTIV-1 IM Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The pharmacokinetics of abatacept and the association between abatacept exposure and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To characterize abatacept pharmacokinetics, relate drug exposure with clinical outcomes, and evaluate the need for dosage adjustments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of data from the ACTIV-1 (Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines) Immune Modulator (IM) randomized clinical trial conducted between October 16, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The trial included hospitalized adults who received abatacept in addition to standard of care for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Data analysis was performed between September 2022 and February 2024. Exposure: Single intravenous infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 1000 mg). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality at day 28 was the primary outcome of interest, and time to recovery at day 28 was the secondary outcome. Drug exposure was assessed using the projected area under the serum concentration time curve over 28 days (AUC0-28). Logistic regression modeling was used to analyze the association between drug exposure and 28-day mortality, adjusted for age, sex, and disease severity. The association between time to recovery and abatacept exposure was examined using Fine-Gray modeling with death as a competing risk, and was adjusted for age, sex, and disease severity. Results: Of the 509 patients who received abatacept, 395 patients with 848 serum samples were included in the population pharmacokinetic analysis. Their median age was 55 (range, 19-89) years and most (250 [63.3%]) were men. Abatacept clearance increased with body weight and more severe disease activity at baseline. Drug exposure was higher in patients who survived vs those who died, with a median AUC0-28 of 21 428 (range, 8462-43 378) mg × h/L vs 18 262 (range, 9628-27 507) mg × h/L (P < .001). Controlling for age, sex, and disease severity, an increase of 5000 units in AUC0-28 was associated with lower odds of mortality at day 28 (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35-0.79]; P = .002). For an AUC0-28 of 19 400 mg × h/L or less, there was a higher probability of recovery at day 28 (hazard ratio, 2.63 [95% CI, 1.70-4.08] for every 5000-unit increase; P < .001). Controlling for age, sex, and disease severity, every 5000-unit increase in AUC0-28 was also associated with lower odds of a composite safety event at 28 days (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.63]; P < .001). Using the dosing regimen studied in the ACTIV-1 IM trial, 121 of the 395 patients (30.6%) would not achieve an abatacept exposure of at least 19 400 mg × h/L, particularly at the extremes of body weight. Using a modified, higher-dose regimen, only 12 patients (3.0%) would not achieve the hypothesized target abatacept exposure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients who were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and achieved higher projected abatacept exposure had reduced mortality and a higher probability of recovery with fewer safety events. However, abatacept clearance was high in this population, and the current abatacept dosing (10 mg/kg intravenously with a maximum of 1000 mg) may not achieve optimal exposure in all patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Predicting Acute Cardiovascular Complications in COVID-19: Insights from a Specialized Cardiac Referral Department.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 increases the risk of acute cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute pulmonary embolism (APE), and acute myocarditis (AMyo). The actual impact of CVDs on mortality of patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. This study aimed to determine whether CVDs influence the course of COVID-19 pneumonia and if they can be easily detected by using common tests and examinations. MATERIAL AND METHODS Data of 249 consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a dedicated cardiology department were analyzed. On admission, clinical status, biomarkers, computed tomography, and bedside echocardiography were performed. RESULTS D-dimer level predicted APE (AUC=0.850 95% CI [0.765; 0.935], P<0.001) with sensitivity of 69.4% and specificity of 96.2% for a level of 4968.0 ng/mL, and NT-proBNP predicted AMyo (AUC=0.692 95% CI [0.502; 0.883], P=0.004) and showed sensitivity of 54.5%, with specificity of 86.5% for the cut-off point of 8970 pg/mL. Troponin T levels were not useful for diagnostic differentiation between CVDs. An extent of lung involvement predicted mortality (OR=1.03 95% CI [1.01;1.04] for 1% increase, P<0.001). After adjusting for lung involvement, ACS increased mortality, compared with COVID-19 pneumonia only (OR=5.27 95% CI [1.76; 16.38] P=0.003), while APE and AMyo did not affect risk for death. CONCLUSIONS D-dimer and NT-proBNP, but not troponin T, are useful in differentiating CVDs in patients with COVID-19. ACS with COVID-19 increased in-hospital mortality independently from extent of lung involvement, while coexisting APE or AMyo did not.

COVID-19 and malaria co-infection: a systematic review of clinical outcomes in endemic areas.

Background: COVID-19 and malaria cause significant morbidity and mortality globally. Co-infection of these diseases can worsen their impact on public health. This review aims to synthesize literature on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 and malaria co-infection to develop effective prevention and treatment strategies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MeSH terms and keywords from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to January 2023. The review included original articles on COVID-19 and malaria co-infection, evaluating their methodological quality and certainty of evidence. It was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023393562). Results: Out of 1,596 screened articles, 19 met the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 2,810 patients, 618 of whom had COVID-19 and malaria co-infection. Plasmodium falciparum and vivax were identified as causative organisms in six studies. Hospital admission ranged from three to 18 days. Nine studies associated co-infection with severe disease, ICU admission, assisted ventilation, and related complications. One study reported 6% ICU admission, and mortality rates of 3%, 9.4%, and 40.4% were observed in four studies. Estimated crude mortality rates were 10.71 and 5.87 per 1,000 person-days for patients with and without concurrent malaria, respectively. Common co-morbidities included Diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory disorders. Conclusion: Most patients with COVID-19 and malaria co-infection experienced short-term hospitalization and mild to moderate disease severity. However, at presentation, co-morbidities and severe malaria were significantly associated with higher mortality or worse clinical outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of early detection, prompt treatment, and close monitoring of patients with COVID-19 and malaria co-infection.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presumed to be treated with sotrovimab in NHS hospitals in England.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the constantly evolving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 on the effectiveness of early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments is unclear. Here, we report characteristics and acute clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with a monoclonal antibody (mAb; presumed to be sotrovimab) across six distinct periods covering the emergence and predominance of Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5) in England. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Hospital Episode Statistics database from January 1-July 31, 2022. Included patients received a mAb delivered by a National Health Service (NHS) hospital as a day-case, for which the primary diagnosis was COVID-19. Patients were presumed to have received sotrovimab based on NHS data showing that 99.98% of COVID-19-mAb-treated individuals received sotrovimab during the study period. COVID-19-attributable hospitalizations were reported overall and across six distinct periods of Omicron subvariant prevalence. Subgroup analyses were conducted in patients with severe renal disease and active cancer. RESULTS: Among a total of 10,096 patients, 1.0% (n = 96) had a COVID-19-attributable hospitalization, 4.6% (n = 465) had a hospital visit due to any cause, and 0.3% (n = 27) died due to any cause during the acute period. COVID-19-attributable hospitalization rates were consistent among subgroups, and no significant differences were observed across periods of Omicron subvariant predominance. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of COVID-19-attributable hospitalizations and deaths were low in mAb-treated patients and among subgroups. Similar hospitalization rates were observed whilst Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 were predominant, despite reported reductions in in vitro neutralization activity of sotrovimab against BA.2 and BA.5.

Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, hospitalization, and death in the post-vaccination era: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised individuals have been shown to mount a reduced response to vaccination, resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness in this cohort. Therefore, in the postvaccination era, immunocompromised individuals remain at high risk of breakthrough infection and COVID-19 related hospitalization and death, which persist despite vaccination efforts. There has been a marked paucity of systematic reviews evaluating existing data describing the clinical measures of efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, specifically in immunocompromised populations. In particular, there is a scarcity of comprehensive evaluations exploring breakthrough infections and severe COVID-19 in this patient population. METHODS: To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review which aimed to provide a summary of current clinical evidence of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in the immunocompromised population. Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a literature search on PubMed and the Cochrane database published between January 1, 2021 to September 1, 2022. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrated that despite vaccination, immunocompromised patients remained at high risk of new breakthrough COVID-19 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to the general population. We found increased average relative risk (RR) of breakthrough infections in the immunocompromised population, including patients with cancer (RR = 1.4), HIV (RR = 1.92), chronic kidney disease (RR = 2.26), immunodeficiency (RR = 2.55), and organ transplant recipients (RR = 6.94). These patients are also at greater risk for hospitalizations and death following COVID-19 breakthrough infection. We found that the RR of hospitalization and death in Cancer patients was 1.08 and 2.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: This demonstrated that vaccination does not offer an adequate level of protection in these groups, necessitating further measures such as Evusheld and further boosters.

Risk stratification and prognosis prediction using cardiac biomarkers in COVID-19: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: There is a need for a robust tool to stratify the patient's risk with COVID-19. We assessed the prognostic values of cardiac biomarkers for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital from July 2020 to September 2021 were included. We obtained cardiac biomarker values from electronic health records and institutional blood banks. We stratified patients with cardiac biomarkers as high-sensitive troponin I (hsTnI), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), creatine kinase (CK) and CK myocardial band (CK-MB), using the clinically relevant thresholds. Prespecified primary outcome measure was all-cause death. RESULTS: A total of 917 patients were included. hsTnI, NT-proBNP, CK and CK-MB were associated with the significantly higher cumulative 30-day incidence of all-cause death (hsTnI: <5.0 ng/L group; 4.3%, 5.0 ng/L-99%ile upper reference limit (URL) group; 8.8% and ≥99% ile URL group; 25.2%, p<0.001. NT-proBNP: <125 pg/mL group; 5.3%, 125-900 pg/mL group; 10.5% and ≥900 pg/mL group; 31.9%, p<0.001. CK:

Is COVID-19 as Lethal as the Spanish Flu? The Australian Experience in 1919 and 2020 and the Role of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs).

We conducted a comparative historical study to interrogate Professor Peter Doherty's warning to Australians in April 2020 that 'COVID-19 is just as lethal as the Spanish flu'. We identified the epicentres of both pandemics, namely, metropolitan Sydney in 1919 and metropolitan Melbourne in 2020 and compared the lethality of the Spanish Flu and COVID-19 in these two cities. Lethality was measured by the number and rate of hospital admissions, death rates, age-specific death rates and age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs). Using these measures, we demonstrated the strikingly different waves of infection, their severity at various points in time and the cumulative impact of the viruses by the end of our study period, i.e., 30 September in 1919 and 2020. Hospital admissions and deaths from the Spanish Flu in 1919 were more than 30 times higher than those for COVID-19 in 2020. The ASMR per 100,000 population for the Spanish Flu was 383 compared to 7 for COVID-19: The former was about 55 times higher than the latter. These results suggest that the Spanish Flu was more lethal than COVID-19. Professor Doherty's warning was perhaps taken seriously and that partly explains the findings of this study. Containing infection in 1919 and 2020 threw the burden on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as 'protective sequestration' (quarantine), contact tracing, lockdowns and masks. It is likely that the persistent and detailed contact tracing scheme provides the best possible explanation for why NPIs in 2020 were more effective than in 1919 and therefore contributed to the lower lethality of the COVID-19 pandemic in its first year.

Examining Excess Mortality Associated With the COVID-19 Pandemic for Renters Threatened With Eviction.

Importance: Residential evictions may have increased excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To estimate excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for renters who received eviction filings (threatened renters). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used an excess mortality framework. Mortality based on linked eviction and death records from 2020 through 2021 was compared with projected mortality estimated from similar records from 2010 through 2016. Data from court records between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021, were collected via the Eviction Lab's Eviction Tracking System. Similar data from court records between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, also collected by the Eviction Lab, were used to estimate projected mortality during the pandemic. We also constructed 2 comparison groups: all individuals living in the study area and a subsample of those individuals living in high-poverty, high-filing tracts. Exposures: Eviction filing. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality in a given month. The difference between observed mortality and projected mortality was used as a measure of excess mortality associated with the pandemic. Results: The cohort of threatened renters during the pandemic period consisted of 282 000 individuals (median age, 36 years [IQR, 28-47]). Eviction filings were 44.7% lower than expected during the study period. The composition of threatened renters by race, ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics during the pandemic was comparable with the prepandemic composition. Expected cumulative age-standardized mortality among threatened renters during this 20-month period of the pandemic was 116.5 (95% CI, 104.0-130.3) per 100 000 person-months, and observed mortality was 238.6 (95% CI, 230.8-246.3) per 100 000 person-months or 106% higher than expected. In contrast, expected mortality for the population living in similar neighborhoods was 114.6 (95% CI, 112.1-116.8) per 100 000 person-months, and observed mortality was 142.8 (95% CI, 140.2-145.3) per 100 000 person-months or 25% higher than expected. In the general population across the study area, expected mortality was 83.5 (95% CI, 83.3-83.8) per 100 000 person-months, and observed mortality was 91.6 (95% CI, 91.4-91.8) per 100 000 person-months or 9% higher than expected. The pandemic produced positive excess mortality ratios across all age groups among threatened renters. Conclusions and Relevance: Renters who received eviction filings experienced substantial excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association between a low-risk COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation criteria and mortality: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients who met a low-risk inclusion criteria for veno-venous extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) with those who did not meet criteria due to higher risk but were subsequently cannulated. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study that included adult patients who were placed on VV ECMO for COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary outcome was the association between the low-risk criteria and mortality. The patients met the criteria if they met EOLIA severe ARDS criteria, no absolute contraindications (age > 60 years, BMI > 55 kg/m2, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration >7 days, irreversible neurologic damage, chronic lung disease, active malignancy, or advanced multiorgan dysfunction), and had three or less relative contraindications (age > 50 years, BMI > 45 kg/m2, comorbidities, MV duration > 4 days, acute kidney injury, receiving vasopressors, hospital LOS > 14 days, or COVID-19 diagnosis > 4 weeks). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included from March 2020 through March 2022. Patients were stratified into low-risk or high-risk categories. The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 7 and the median PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 44 at the time of ECMO cannulation. The in-hospital mortality was 47.8% in the low-risk group and 69.0% in the high-risk group (p = 0.096). CONCLUSION: There was not a statistically significant difference in survival between low-risk patients and high-risk patients; however, there was a trend toward higher survival in the lower-risk group.

Multisystemic Inflammation Influences Prognosis in Fulminant Lymphocytic Myocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is a hyperinflammatory shock associated with cardiac dysfunction and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, there are no reports on using MIS criteria, such as multisystemic inflammation (MSI) in fulminant myocarditis, without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study investigated the differences in clinical characteristics and course between patients with fulminant lymphocytic myocarditis (FLM) plus MSI and those without MSI.Methods and Results: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 273 patients with FLM registered in the JROAD-DPC database between April 2014 and March 2017. We evaluated the presence of MSI using criteria modified from previously reported MIS criteria and compared the characteristics and risk of mortality or heart transplantation between FLM patients with MSI and without MSI. Of the 273 patients with FLM, 107 (39%) were diagnosed with MSI. The MSI group was younger (44 vs. 57 years; P<0.0001) and had more females (50% vs. 36%; P=0.0236), a higher incidence of pericardial effusion (58% vs. 40%; P=0.0073), and a lower 90-day mortality rate (19% vs. 33%; P=0.0185) than the non-MSI group. The risk of mortality at 90 days was lower in FLM patients aged <50 years with MSI aged <50 years than in those without MSI (P=0.0463). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that MSI may influence the prognosis of FLM, especially in patients aged <50 years.