The Incidence of Pulmonary Embolism in Hospitalized Non-ICU Patients with COVID-19 during the First Wave: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: During the first COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 in the Netherlands, the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) appeared to be high in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This study was performed to evaluate the incidence of PE during hospital stay in COVID-19 patients not admitted to the ICU. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from 8 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients admitted between February 27, 2020, and July 31, 2020, were included. Data extracted comprised clinical characteristics, medication use, first onset of COVID-19-related symptoms, admission date due to COVID-19, and date of PE diagnosis. Only polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients were included. All PEs were diagnosed with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). RESULTS: Data from 1,852 patients who were admitted to the hospital ward were collected. Forty patients (2.2%) were diagnosed with PE within 28 days following hospital admission. The median time to PE since admission was 4.5 days (IQR 0.0-9.0). In all 40 patients, PE was diagnosed within the first 2 weeks after hospital admission and for 22 (55%) patients within 2 weeks after onset of symptoms. Patient characteristics, pre-existing comorbidities, anticoagulant use, and laboratory parameters at admission were not related to the development of PE. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study of 1,852 COVID-19 patients only admitted to the non-ICU wards, the incidence of CTPA-confirmed PE was 2.2% during the first 4 weeks after onset of symptoms and occurred exclusively within 2 weeks after hospital admission.

External validation of six COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the performance of COVID-19 prognostic models and scores for mortality risk in older populations across three health-care settings: hospitals, primary care, and nursing homes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective external validation study included 14,092 older individuals of ≥70 years of age with a clinical or polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis from March 2020 to December 2020. The six validation cohorts include three hospital-based (CliniCo, COVID-OLD, COVID-PREDICT), two primary care-based (Julius General Practitioners Network/Academisch network huisartsgeneeskunde/Network of Academic general Practitioners, PHARMO), and one nursing home cohort (YSIS) in the Netherlands. Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool for quality and risk of bias assessment and considering predictor availability in validation cohorts, we selected six prognostic models predicting mortality risk in adults with COVID-19 infection (GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, National Early Warning Score 2-extended model, Xie model, Wang clinical model, and CURB65 score). All six prognostic models were validated in the hospital cohorts and the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model was validated in all three healthcare settings. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home settings. Model performance was evaluated in each validation cohort separately in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves. An intercept update was performed in models indicating miscalibration followed by predictive performance re-evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital mortality for hospitals and 28-day mortality for primary care and nursing home setting. RESULTS: All six prognostic models performed poorly and showed miscalibration in the older population cohorts. In the hospital settings, model performance ranged from calibration-in-the-large -1.45 to 7.46, calibration slopes 0.24-0.81, and C-statistic 0.55-0.71 with 4C Mortality Score performing as the most discriminative and well-calibrated model. Performance across health-care settings was similar for the GAL-COVID-19 model, with a calibration-in-the-large in the range of -2.35 to -0.15 indicating overestimation, calibration slopes of 0.24-0.81 indicating signs of overfitting, and C-statistic of 0.55-0.71. CONCLUSION: Our results show that most prognostic models for predicting mortality risk performed poorly in the older population with COVID-19, in each health-care setting: hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. Insights into factors influencing predictive model performance in the older population are needed for pandemic preparedness and reliable prognostication of health-related outcomes in this demographic.

Muscle abnormalities worsen after post-exertional malaise in long COVID.

A subgroup of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain symptomatic over three months after infection. A distinctive symptom of patients with long COVID is post-exertional malaise, which is associated with a worsening of fatigue- and pain-related symptoms after acute mental or physical exercise, but its underlying pathophysiology is unclear. With this longitudinal case-control study (NCT05225688), we provide new insights into the pathophysiology of post-exertional malaise in patients with long COVID. We show that skeletal muscle structure is associated with a lower exercise capacity in patients, and local and systemic metabolic disturbances, severe exercise-induced myopathy and tissue infiltration of amyloid-containing deposits in skeletal muscles of patients with long COVID worsen after induction of post-exertional malaise. This study highlights novel pathways that help to understand the pathophysiology of post-exertional malaise in patients suffering from long COVID and other post-infectious diseases.

Host Response Changes and Their Association with Mortality in COVID-19 Patients with Lymphopenia.

Rationale: Lymphopenia in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with increased mortality. Objectives: To explore the association between lymphopenia, host response aberrations, and mortality in patients with lymphopenic COVID-19. Methods: We determined 43 plasma biomarkers reflective of four pathophysiological domains: endothelial cell and coagulation activation, inflammation and organ damage, cytokine release, and chemokine release. We explored if decreased concentrations of lymphocyte-derived proteins in patients with lymphopenia were associated with an increase in mortality. We sought to identify host response phenotypes in patients with lymphopenia by cluster analysis of plasma biomarkers. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 439 general ward patients with COVID-19 were stratified by baseline lymphocyte counts: normal (>1.0 × 109/L; n = 167), mild lymphopenia (>0.5 to ⩽1.0 × 109/L; n = 194), and severe lymphopenia (⩽0.5 × 109/L; n = 78). Lymphopenia was associated with alterations in each host response domain. Lymphopenia was associated with increased mortality. Moreover, in patients with lymphopenia (n = 272), decreased concentrations of several lymphocyte-derived proteins (e.g., CCL5, IL-4, IL-13, IL-17A) were associated with an increase in mortality (at P < 0.01 or stronger significance levels). A cluster analysis revealed three host response phenotypes in patients with lymphopenia: "hyporesponsive" (23.2%), "hypercytokinemic" (36.4%), and "inflammatory-injurious" (40.4%), with substantially differing mortality rates of 9.5%, 5.1%, and 26.4%, respectively. A 10-biomarker model accurately predicted these host response phenotypes in an external cohort with similar mortality distribution. The inflammatory-injurious phenotype showed a remarkable combination of relatively high inflammation and organ damage markers with high antiinflammatory cytokine levels yet low proinflammatory cytokine levels. Conclusions: Lymphopenia in COVID-19 signifies a heterogenous group of patients with distinct host response features. Specific host responses contribute to lymphopenia-associated mortality in COVID-19, including reduced CCL5 levels.

Does atrial fibrillation affect prognosis in hospitalised COVID-19 patients? A multicentre historical cohort study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this multicentre COVID-PREDICT study (a nationwide observational cohort study that aims to better understand clinical course of COVID-19 and to predict which COVID-19 patients should receive which treatment and which type of care) was to determine the association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, complications and discharge destination in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. SETTING: Data from a historical cohort study in eight hospitals (both academic and non-academic) in the Netherlands between January 2020 and July 2021 were used in this study. PARTICIPANTS: 3064 hospitalised COVID-19 patients >18 years old. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of new-onset AF during hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were the association between new-onset AF (vs prevalent or non-AF) and mortality, ICU admissions, complications and discharge destination, performed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 3064 included patients (60.6% men, median age: 65 years, IQR 55-75 years), 72 (2.3%) patients had prevalent AF and 164 (5.4%) patients developed new-onset AF during hospitalisation. Compared with patients without AF, patients with new-onset AF had a higher incidence of death (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.59) an ICU admission (aOR 5.45, 95% CI 3.90 to 7.61). Mortality was non-significantly different between patients with prevalent AF and those with new-onset AF (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76). However, new-onset AF was associated with a higher incidence of ICU admission and complications compared with prevalent AF (OR 6.34, 95% CI 2.95 to 13.63, OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.55, respectively). CONCLUSION: New-onset AF was associated with an increased incidence of death, ICU admission, complications and a lower chance to be discharged home. These effects were far less pronounced in patients with prevalent AF. Therefore, new-onset AF seems to represent a marker of disease severity, rather than a cause of adverse outcomes.

Platelets of COVID-19 patients display mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and energy metabolism failure compatible with cell death.

Background: Alterations in platelet function have been implicated in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. While early reports linked hyperactivated platelets to thromboembolic events in COVID-19, subsequent investigations demonstrated hyporeactive platelets with a procoagulant phenotype. Mitochondria are important for energy metabolism and the function of platelets. Objectives: Here, we sought to map the energy metabolism of platelets in a cohort of noncritically ill COVID-19 patients and assess platelet mitochondrial function, activation status, and responsiveness to external stimuli. Methods: We enrolled hospitalized COVID-19 patients and controls between October 2020 and December 2021. Platelets function and metabolism was analyzed by flow cytometry, metabolomics, glucose fluxomics, electron and fluorescence microscopy and western blot. Results: Platelets from COVID-19 patients showed increased phosphatidylserine externalization indicating a procoagulant phenotype and hyporeactivity to ex vivo stimuli, associated with profound mitochondrial dysfunction characterized by mitochondrial depolarization, lower mitochondrial DNA-encoded transcript levels, an altered mitochondrial morphology consistent with increased mitochondrial fission, and increased pyruvate/lactate ratios in platelet supernatants. Metabolic profiling by untargeted metabolomics revealed NADH, NAD+, and ATP among the top decreased metabolites in patients' platelets, suggestive of energy metabolism failure. Consistently, platelet fluxomics analyses showed a strongly reduced utilization of 13C-glucose in all major energy pathways together with a rerouting of glucose to de novo generation of purine metabolites. Patients' platelets further showed evidence of oxidative stress, together with increased glutathione oxidation and synthesis. Addition of plasma from COVID-19 patients to normal platelets partially reproduced the phenotype of patients' platelets and disclosed a temporal relationship between mitochondrial decay and (subsequent) phosphatidylserine exposure and hyporeactivity. Conclusion: These data link energy metabolism failure in platelets from COVID-19 patients with a prothrombotic platelet phenotype with features matching cell death.

What is the aetiology of dysnatraemia in COVID-19 and how is this related to outcomes in patients admitted during earlier and later COVID-19 waves? A multicentre, retrospective observational study in 11 Dutch hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship among dysnatraemia at hospital presentation and duration of admission, risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and all-cause mortality and to assess the underlying pathophysiological mechanism of hyponatraemia in patients with COVID-19. Our hypothesis is that both hyponatraemia and hypernatraemia at presentation are associated with adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Secondary care; 11 Dutch hospitals (2 university and 9 general hospitals). PARTICIPANTS: An analysis was performed within the retrospective multicentre cohort study COVIDPredict. 7811 patients were included (60% men, 40% women) between 24 February 2020 and 9 August 2022. Patients who were ≥18 years with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 or CT with COVID-19 reporting and data system score≥4 and alternative diagnosis were included. Patients were excluded when serum sodium levels at presentation were not registered in the database or when they had been transferred from another participating hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: We studied demographics, medical history, symptoms and outcomes. Patients were stratified according to serum sodium concentration and urinary sodium excretion. RESULTS: Hyponatraemia was present in 2677 (34.2%) patients and hypernatraemia in 126 (1.6%) patients. Patients with hyponatraemia presented more frequently with diarrhoea, lower blood pressure and tachycardia. Hyponatraemia was, despite a higher risk for ICU admission (OR 1.27 (1.11-1.46; p<0.001)), not associated with mortality or the risk for intubation. Patients with hypernatraemia had higher mortality rates (OR 2.25 (1.49-3.41; p<0.001)) and were at risk for ICU admission (OR 2.89 (1.83-4.58)) and intubation (OR 2.95 (1.83-4.74)). CONCLUSIONS: Hypernatraemia at presentation was associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Hypovolaemic hyponatraemia was found to be the most common aetiology of hyponatraemia. Hyponatraemia of unknown aetiology was associated with a higher risk for ICU admission and intubation and longer duration of admission.

Thrombocytopenia is associated with a dysregulated host response in severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombocytopenia is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between thrombocytopenia and alterations in host response pathways implicated in disease pathogenesis in patients with severe COVID-19. PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied COVID-19 patients admitted to a general hospital ward included in a national (CovidPredict) cohort derived from 13 hospitals in the Netherlands. In a subgroup, 43 host response biomarkers providing insight in aberrations in distinct pathophysiological domains (coagulation and endothelial cell function; inflammation and damage; cytokines and chemokines) were determined in plasma obtained at a single time point within 48 h after admission. Patients were stratified in those with normal platelet counts (150-400 × 109/L) and those with thrombocytopenia (<150 × 109/L). RESULTS: 6.864 patients were enrolled in the national cohort, of whom 1.348 had thrombocytopenia and 5.516 had normal platelets counts; the biomarker cohort consisted of 429 patients, of whom 85 with thrombocytopenia and 344 with normal platelet counts. Plasma D-dimer levels were not different in thrombocytopenia, although patients with moderate-severe thrombocytopenia (<100 × 109/L) showed higher D-dimer levels, indicating enhanced coagulation activation. Patients with thrombocytopenia had lower plasma levels of many proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, and antiviral mediators, suggesting involvement of platelets in inflammation and antiviral immunity. Thrombocytopenia was associated with alterations in endothelial cell biomarkers indicative of enhanced activation and a relatively preserved glycocalyx integrity. CONCLUSION: Thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 is associated with broad host response changes across several pathophysiological domains. These results suggest a role of platelets in the immune response during severe COVID-19.

Neurobiological basis and risk factors of persistent fatigue and concentration problems after COVID-19: study protocol for a prospective case-control study (VeCosCO).

INTRODUCTION: The risk factors for persistent fatigue and cognitive complaints after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the underlying pathophysiology are largely unknown. Both clinical factors and cognitive-behavioural factors have been suggested to play a role in the perpetuation of complaints. A neurobiological aetiology, such as neuroinflammation, could be the underlying pathophysiological mechanism for persisting complaints.To unravel factors associated with persisting complaints, VeCosCO will compare individuals with and without persistent fatigue and cognitive complaints >3 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The study consists of two work packages. The first work package aims to (1) investigate the relation between persisting complaints and neuropsychological functioning; (2) determine risk factors and at-risk phenotypes for the development of persistent fatigue and cognitive complaints, including the presence of postexertional malaise and (3) describe consequences of persistent complaints on quality of life, healthcare consumption and physical functioning. The second work package aims to (1) determine the presence of neuroinflammation with [18F]DPA-714 whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) scans in patients with persisting complaints and (2) explore the relationship between (neuro)inflammation and brain structure and functioning measured with MRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective case-control study in participants with and without persistent fatigue and cognitive complaints, >3 months after laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants will be mainly included from existing COVID-19 cohorts in the Netherlands covering the full spectrum of COVID-19 acute disease severity. Primary outcomes are neuropsychological functioning, postexertional malaise, neuroinflammation measured using [18F]DPA-714 PET, and brain functioning and structure using (f)MRI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Work package 1 (NL79575.018.21) and 2 (NL77033.029.21) were approved by the medical ethical review board of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (The Netherlands). Informed consent is required prior to participation in the study. Results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and shared with the key population.

Health Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Monoclonal SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis.

Importance: Pre-exposure prophylaxis with neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs PrEP) prevents infection and reduces hospitalizations and the duration thereof for COVID-19 and death among high-risk individuals. However, reduced effectiveness due to a changing SARS-CoV-2 viral landscape and high drug prices remain substantial implementation barriers. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of mAbs PrEP as COVID-19 PrEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a decision analytic model was developed and parameterized with health care outcome and utilization data from individuals with high risk for COVID-19. The SARS-CoV-2 infection probability, mAbs PrEP effectiveness, and drug pricing were varied. All costs were collected from a third-party payer perspective. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care outcomes including new SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalization, and deaths. The cost per death averted and cost-effectiveness ratios using a threshold for prevention interventions of $22 000 or less per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: The clinical cohort consisted of 636 individuals with COVID-19 (mean [SD] age 63 [18] years; 341 [54%] male). Most individuals were at high risk for severe COVID-19, including 137 (21%) with a body mass index of 30 or higher, 60 (9.4%) with hematological malignant neoplasm, 108 (17%) post-transplantation, and 152 (23.9%) who used immunosuppressive medication before COVID-19. Within the context of a high (18%) SARS-CoV-2 infection probability and low (25%) effectiveness the model calculated a short-term reduction of 42% ward admissions, 31% intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and 34% deaths. Cost-saving scenarios were obtained with drug prices of $275 and 75% or higher effectiveness. With a 100% effectiveness mAbs PrEP can reduce ward admissions by 70%, ICU admissions by 97%, and deaths by 92%. Drug prices, however, need to reduce to $550 for cost-effectiveness ratios less than $22 000 per QALY gained per death averted and to $2200 for ratios between $22 000 and $88 000. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, use of mAbs PrEP for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections was cost-saving at the beginning of an epidemic wave (high infection probability) with 75% or higher effectiveness and drug price of $275. These results are timely and relevant for decision-makers involved in mAbs PrEP implementation. When newer mAbs PrEP combinations become available, guidance on implementation should be formulated ensuring a fast rollout. Nevertheless, advocacy for mAbs PrEP use and critical discussion on drug prices are necessary to ensuring cost-effectiveness for different epidemic settings.

Prolonged indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-2 activity and associated cellular stress in post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) encompass fatigue, post-exertional malaise and cognitive problems. The abundant expression of the tryptophan-catabolizing enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-2 (IDO2) in fatal/severe COVID-19, led us to determine, in an exploratory observational study, whether IDO2 is expressed and active in PASC, and may correlate with pathophysiology. METHODS: Plasma or serum, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were obtained from well-characterized PASC patients and SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals without PASC. We assessed tryptophan and its degradation products by UPLC-MS/MS. IDO2 activity, its potential consequences, and the involvement of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) in IDO2 expression were determined in PBMC from another PASC cohort by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for IDO2, IDO1, AHR, kynurenine metabolites, autophagy, and apoptosis. These PBMC were also analyzed by metabolomics and for mitochondrial functioning by respirometry. IHC was also performed on autopsy brain material from two PASC patients. FINDINGS: IDO2 is expressed and active in PBMC from PASC patients, as well as in brain tissue, long after SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is paralleled by autophagy, and in blood cells by reduced mitochondrial functioning, reduced intracellular levels of amino acids and Krebs cycle-related compounds. IDO2 expression and activity is triggered by SARS-CoV-2-infection, but the severity of SARS-CoV-2-induced pathology appears related to the generated specific kynurenine metabolites. Ex vivo, IDO2 expression and autophagy can be halted by an AHR antagonist. INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers long-lasting IDO2 expression, which can be halted by an AHR antagonist. The specific kynurenine catabolites may relate to SARS-CoV-2-induced symptoms and pathology. FUNDING: None.

Differences in incidence, nature of symptoms, and duration of long COVID among hospitalised migrant and non-migrant patients in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Comprehensive data on long COVID across ethnic and migrant groups are lacking. We investigated incidence, nature of symptoms, clinical predictors, and duration of long COVID among COVID-19 hospitalised patients in the Netherlands by migration background (Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese origin, Others). Methods: We used COVID-19 admissions and follow up data (January 2021-July 2022) from Amsterdam University Medical Centers. We calculated long COVID incidence proportions per NICE guidelines by migration background and assessed for clinical predictors via robust Poisson regressions. We then examined associations between migration background and long COVID using robust Poisson regressions and adjusted for derived clinical predictors, and other biologically relevant factors. We also assessed long COVID symptom persistence at one-year post-discharge. Findings: 1886 patients were included. 483 patients had long COVID (26%, 95% CI 24-28%) at 12 weeks post-discharge. Symptoms like dizziness, joint pain, insomnia, and headache varied by migration background. Clinical predictors of long COVID were female sex, hospital admission duration, intensive care unit admission, and receiving oxygen, or corticosteroid therapy. Long COVID risk was higher among patients with migration background than Dutch origin patients after adjustments for derived clinical predictors, age, smoking, vaccination status, comorbidities and remdesivir treatment. Only 14% of long COVID symptoms persisted at one-year post-discharge. Interpretation: There are significant differences in occurrence, nature of symptoms, and duration of long COVID by migration background. Studies assessing the spectrum of functional limitation and access to post-COVID healthcare are needed to help plan for appropriate and accessible healthcare interventions. Funding: The Amsterdam UMC COVID-19 biobank is supported by the Amsterdam UMC Corona Research Fund and the Talud Foundation (Stichting Talud). The current analyses were supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF21OC0067528].

Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Targeting Severe Fatigue Following Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe fatigue following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is prevalent and debilitating. This study investigated the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for severe fatigue following COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter, 2-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Netherlands with patients being severely fatigued 3-12 months following COVID-19. Patients (N = 114) were randomly assigned (1:1) to CBT or care as usual (CAU). CBT, targeting perpetuating factors of fatigue, was provided for 17 weeks. The primary outcome was the overall mean difference between CBT and CAU on the fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength, directly post-CBT or CAU (T1), and after 6 months (T2). Secondary outcomes were differences in proportions of patients meeting criteria for severe and/or chronic fatigue, differences in physical and social functioning, somatic symptoms, and problems concentrating between CBT and CAU. RESULTS: Patients were mainly nonhospitalized and self-referred. Patients who received CBT were significantly less severely fatigued across follow-up assessments than patients receiving CAU (-8.8 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9 to -5.8]); P < .001), representing a medium Cohen's d effect size (0.69). The between-group difference in fatigue severity was present at T1 (-9.3 [95% CI, -13.3 to -5.3]) and T2 (-8.4 [95% CI, -13.1 to -3.7]). All secondary outcomes favored CBT. Eight adverse events were recorded during CBT, and 20 during CAU. No serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients, who were mainly nonhospitalized and self-referred, CBT was effective in reducing fatigue. The positive effect was sustained at 6-month follow-up. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL8947.

Age-related changes in plasma biomarkers and their association with mortality in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced mortality occurs predominantly in older patients. Several immunomodulating therapies seem less beneficial in these patients. The biological substrate behind these observations is unknown. The aim of this study was to obtain insight into the association between ageing, the host response and mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We determined 43 biomarkers reflective of alterations in four pathophysiological domains: endothelial cell and coagulation activation, inflammation and organ damage, and cytokine and chemokine release. We used mediation analysis to associate ageing-driven alterations in the host response with 30-day mortality. Biomarkers associated with both ageing and mortality were validated in an intensive care unit and external cohort. RESULTS: 464 general ward patients with COVID-19 were stratified according to age decades. Increasing age was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality. Ageing was associated with alterations in each of the host response domains, characterised by greater activation of the endothelium and coagulation system and stronger elevation of inflammation and organ damage markers, which was independent of an increase in age-related comorbidities. Soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor 1, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 and soluble thrombomodulin showed the strongest correlation with ageing and explained part of the ageing-driven increase in 30-day mortality (proportion mediated: 13.0%, 12.9% and 12.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Ageing is associated with a strong and broad modification of the host response to COVID-19, and specific immune changes likely contribute to increased mortality in older patients. These results may provide insight into potential age-specific immunomodulatory targets in COVID-19.

Real-world Evidence of the Effects of Novel Treatments for COVID-19 on Mortality: A Nationwide Comparative Cohort Study of Hospitalized Patients in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Waves in the Netherlands.

Background: Large clinical trials on drugs for hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown significant effects on mortality. There may be a discrepancy with the observed real-world effect. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands during 4 pandemic waves and analyze the association of the newly introduced treatments with mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and discharge alive. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Patients were categorized into waves and into treatment groups (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, neutralizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibodies, corticosteroids, and interleukin [IL]-6 antagonists). Four types of Cox regression analyses were used: unadjusted, adjusted, propensity matched, and propensity weighted. Results: Among 5643 patients from 11 hospitals, we observed a changing epidemiology during 4 pandemic waves, with a decrease in median age (67-64 years; P < .001), in in-hospital mortality on the ward (21%-15%; P < .001), and a trend in the ICU (24%-16%; P = .148). In ward patients, hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality (1.54; 95% CI, 1.22-1.96), and remdesivir was associated with a higher rate of discharge alive within 29 days (1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). Corticosteroids were associated with a decrease in mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96); the results of IL-6 antagonists were inconclusive. In patients directly admitted to the ICU, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and IL-6 antagonists were not associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions: Both remdesivir and corticosteroids were associated with better outcomes in ward patients with COVID-19. Continuous evaluation of real-world treatment effects is needed.

Antigenic cartography using sera from sequence-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern infections reveals antigenic divergence of Omicron.

Large-scale vaccination campaigns have prevented countless hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19. However, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that escape from immunity challenges the effectiveness of current vaccines. Given this continuing evolution, an important question is when and how to update SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to antigenically match circulating variants, similarly to seasonal influenza viruses where antigenic drift necessitates periodic vaccine updates. Here, we studied SARS-CoV-2 antigenic drift by assessing neutralizing activity against variants of concern (VOCs) in a set of sera from patients infected with viral sequence-confirmed VOCs. Infections with D614G or Alpha strains induced the broadest immunity, whereas individuals infected with other VOCs had more strain-specific responses. Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 were substantially resistant to neutralization by sera elicited by all other variants. Antigenic cartography revealed that Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 were antigenically most distinct from D614G, associated with immune escape, and possibly will require vaccine updates to ensure vaccine effectiveness.

Antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants induced by four different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in health care workers in the Netherlands: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging and future SARS-CoV-2 variants may jeopardize the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Therefore, it is important to know how the different vaccines perform against diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a prospective cohort of 165 SARS-CoV-2 naive health care workers in the Netherlands, vaccinated with either one of four vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222 or Ad26.COV2.S), we performed a head-to-head comparison of the ability of sera to recognize and neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs; Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron). Repeated serum sampling was performed 5 times during a year (from January 2021 till January 2022), including before and after booster vaccination with BNT162b2. Four weeks after completing the initial vaccination series, SARS-CoV-2 wild-type neutralizing antibody titers were highest in recipients of mRNA-1273, followed by recipients of BNT162b2 (geometric mean titers (GMT) of 358 [95% CI 231-556] and 214 [95% CI 153-299], respectively; p<0.05), and substantially lower in those vaccinated with the adenovirus vector-based vaccines AZD1222 and Ad26.COV2.S (GMT of 18 [95% CI 11-30] and 14 [95% CI 8-25] IU/ml, respectively; p<0.001). VOCs neutralization was reduced in all vaccine groups, with the greatest reduction in neutralization GMT observed against the Omicron variant (fold change 0.03 [95% CI 0.02-0.04], p<0.001). The booster BNT162b2 vaccination increased neutralizing antibody titers for all groups with substantial improvement against the VOCs including the Omicron variant. We used linear regression and linear mixed model analysis. All results were adjusted for possible confounding of age and sex. Study limitations include the lack of cellular immunity data. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study shows that the mRNA vaccines appear superior to adenovirus vector-based vaccines in inducing neutralizing antibodies against VOCs four weeks after initial vaccination and after booster vaccination, which implies the use of mRNA vaccines for both initial and booster vaccination.

A single mRNA vaccine dose in COVID-19 patients boosts neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern.

The urgent need for, but limited availability of, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines worldwide has led to widespread consideration of dose-sparing strategies. Here, we evaluate the SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses following BNT162b2 vaccination in 150 previously SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals from a population-based cohort. One week after first vaccine dose, spike protein antibody levels are 27-fold higher and neutralizing antibody titers 12-fold higher, exceeding titers of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naive controls, with minimal additional boosting after the second dose. Neutralizing antibody titers against four variants of concern increase after vaccination; however, overall neutralization breadth does not improve. Pre-vaccination neutralizing antibody titers and time since infection have the largest positive effect on titers following vaccination. COVID-19 severity and the presence of comorbidities have no discernible impact on vaccine response. In conclusion, a single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine up to 15 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection offers higher neutralizing antibody titers than 2 vaccine doses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals.