Impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on inpatient clinical outcome

BackgroundPrior observation has shown differences in COVID-19 hospitalization rates between SARS-CoV-2 variants, but limited information describes differences in hospitalization outcomes. MethodsPatients admitted to 5 hospitals with COVID-19 were included if they had hypoxia, tachypnea, tachycardia, or fever, and data to describe SARS-CoV-2 variant, either from whole genome sequencing, or inference when local surveillance showed [≥]95% dominance of a single variant. The average effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant on 14-day risk of severe disease, defined by need for advanced respiratory support, or death was evaluated using models weighted on propensity scores derived from baseline clinical features. ResultsSevere disease or death within 14 days occurred for 950 of 3,365 (28%) unvaccinated patients and 178 of 808 (22%) patients with history of vaccination or prior COVID-19. Among unvaccinated patients, the relative risk of 14-day severe disease or death for Delta variant compared to ancestral lineages was 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.55). Compared to Delta variant, this risk for Omicron patients was 0.78 (95% CI 0.62-0.97) and compared to ancestral lineages was 1.04 (95% CI 0.84-1.24). Among Omicron and Delta infections, patients with history of vaccination or prior COVID-19 had one-half the 14-day risk of severe disease or death (adjusted hazard ratio 0.46, IQR 0.34-0.62) but no significant outcome difference between Delta and Omicron infections. ConclusionsAlthough the risk of severe disease or death for unvaccinated patients with Omicron was lower than Delta, it was similar to ancestral lineages. Severe outcomes were less common in vaccinated patients, but there was no difference between Delta and Omicron infections.

Sex and gender differences in COVID testing, hospital admission, presentation, and drivers of severe outcomes in the DC/Maryland region

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSRates of severe illness and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 are greater for males, but the mechanisms for this difference are unclear. Understanding the differences in outcomes between males and females across the age spectrum will guide both public health and biomedical interventions. MethodsRetrospective cohort analysis of SARS-CoV-2 testing and admission data in a health system. Patient-level data were assessed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression modeling was used to identify features associated with increased male risk of severe outcomes. ResultsIn 213,175 SARS-CoV-2 tests, despite similar positivity rates (8.2%F vs 8.9%M), males were more frequently hospitalized (28%F vs 33%M). Of 2,626 hospitalized individuals, females had less severe presenting respiratory parameters and males had more fever. Comorbidity burden was similar, but with differences in specific conditions. Medications relevant for SARS-CoV-2 were used at similar frequency except tocilizumab (M>F). Males had higher inflammatory lab values. In a logistic regression model, male sex was associated with a higher risk of severe outcomes at 24 hours (odds ratio (OR) 3.01, 95%CI 1.75, 5.18) and at peak status (OR 2.58, 95%CI 1.78,3.74) among 18-49 year-olds. Block-wise addition of potential explanatory variables demonstrated that only the inflammatory labs substantially modified the OR associated with male sex across all ages. ConclusionHigher levels of clinical inflammatory labs are the only features that are associated with the heightened risk of severe outcomes and death for males in COVID-19. Trial registrationNA FundingHopkins inHealth; COVID-19 Administrative Supplement (HHS Region 3 Treatment Center), Office of the ASPR; NIH/NCI U54CA260492 (SK), NIH/NIA U54AG062333 (SK).

Effectiveness of remdesivir with and without dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

RationaleRemdesivir and dexamethasone reduced the severity of COVID-19 in clinical trials. However, their individual or combined effectiveness in clinical practice remains unknown. ObjectivesTo examine the effectiveness of remdesivir with or without dexamethasone. MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study between March 4 and August 29, 2020. Eligible COVID cases were hospitalized patients treated with remdesivir with or without dexamethasone. We applied a Cox proportional hazards model with propensity score matching to estimate the effect of these treatments on clinical improvement by 28 days (discharge or a 2-point decrease in WHO severity score) and 28-day mortality. Measurements and Main ResultsOf 2485 COVID-19 patients admitted between March 4 and August 29, 2020, 342 received remdesivir and 157 received remdesivir plus dexamethasone. Median age was 60 years; 45% were female; 81% were non-white. Remdesivir recipients on room air or nasal cannula oxygen had a faster time to clinical improvement (median 5.0 days [IQR 4.0, 8.0], remdesivir vs. 7.0 days [IQR 5.0, 12.0], control; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.55 [1.28; 1.87]), yet those requiring higher levels of respiratory support did not benefit. Remdesivir recipients had lower, but statistically insignificant, 28-day mortality (7.6% [23 deaths], remdesivir vs. 14.9% [45 deaths], control). Adding dexamethasone trended toward lower 28-day mortality compared to remdesivir alone (5.1% [8 deaths] vs. 9.2% [17 deaths]; aHR 0.14 [0.02; 1.03]). ConclusionsRemdesivir offered a significantly faster time to clinical improvement among a cohort of predominantly non-white patients hospitalized with COVID-19, particularly with mild-moderate disease. Remdesivir plus dexamethasone may reduce mortality.

Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma Therapy compared to Fresh Frozen Plasma in Severely ill COVID-19 Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThe role of convalescent plasma (COPLA) for the treatment of severely ill Corona Virus Disease-2019 is under investigation. We compared the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in severe COVID-19 patients. Methods and findingsThis was an open-label, single-centre phase II RCT on 29 patients with severe COVID-19 from India. One group received COPLA with standard medical care (SMC) (n=14), and another group received FFP with SMC (n=15). A total of 29 patients were randomized in the two treatment groups. Eleven out of 14 (78.5%) patients remained free of ventilation at day seven in the intervention arm while the proportion was 14 out of 15 (93.3 %) in the control arm (p= 0.258). The median reductions in RR per min at 48-hours in COPLA-group and FFP group were -6.5 and -3 respectively [p=0.004] and at day seven were -14.5 and -10 respectively (p=0.008). The median improvements in percentage O2 saturation at 48-hours were 6.5 and 2 respectively [p=0.001] and at day seven were 10 and 7.5 respectively (p=0.026). In the COPLA-group, the median improvement in PaO2/FiO2 was significantly superior to FFP at 48-hours [41.94 and 231.15, p=0.009], and also at day-7 [5.55 and 77.01 p<0.001]. We did not find significant differences in hospitalization duration between the groups (0.08). ConclusionCOPLA therapy resulted in rapid improvement in respiratory parameters and shortened time to clinical recovery, although no significant reduction in mortality was observed in this pilot trial. We need larger trials to draw conclusive evidence on the use of Convalescent plasma in COVID-19. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (identifier: NCT04346446).

Patient trajectories and risk factors for severe outcomes among persons hospitalized for COVID-19 in the Maryland/DC region

BackgroundRisk factors for poor outcomes from COVID-19 are emerging among US cohorts, but patient trajectories during hospitalization ranging from mild-moderate, severe, and death and the factors associated with these outcomes have been underexplored. MethodsWe performed a cohort analysis of consecutive COVID-19 hospital admissions at 5 Johns Hopkins hospitals in the Baltimore/DC area between March 4 and April 24, 2020. Disease severity and outcomes were classified using the WHO COVID-19 disease severity ordinal scale. Cox proportional-hazards regressions were performed to assess relationships between demographics, clinical features and progression to severe disease or death. Results832 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized; 633 (76.1%) were discharged, 113 (13.6%) died, and 85 (10.2%) remained hospitalized. Among those discharged, 518 (82%) had mild/moderate and 116 (18%) had severe illness. Mortality was statistically significantly associated with increasing age per 10 years (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.54; 95%CI 1.28-1.84), nursing home residence (aHR 2.13, 95%CI 1.41-3.23), Charlson comorbidity index (1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.26), respiratory rate (aHR 1.13; 95%CI 1.09-1.17), D-dimer greater than 1mg/dL (aHR 2.79; 95% 1.53-5.09), and detectable troponin (aHR 2.79; 95%CI 1.53-5.09). In patients under 60, only male sex (aHR 1.7;95%CI 1.11-2.58), increasing body mass index (BMI) (aHR1.25 1.14-1.37), Charlson score (aHR 1.27; 1.1-1.46) and respiratory rate (aHR 1.16; 95%CI 1.13-1.2) were associated with severe illness or death. ConclusionsA combination of demographic and clinical features on admission is strongly associated with progression to severe disease or death in a US cohort of COVID-19 patients. Younger patients have distinct risk factors for poor outcomes.