Comparison of machine learning methods with logistic regression analysis in creating predictive models for risk of critical in-hospital events in COVID-19 patients on hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been trained to early predict critical in-hospital events from COVID-19 using patient data at admission, but little is known on how their performance compares with each other and/or with statistical logistic regression (LR). This prospective multicentre cohort study compares the performance of a LR and five ML models on the contribution of influencing predictors and predictor-to-event relationships on prediction model´s performance. METHODS: We used 25 baseline variables of 490 COVID-19 patients admitted to 8 hospitals in Germany (March-November 2020) to develop and validate (75/25 random-split) 3 linear (L1 and L2 penalty, elastic net [EN]) and 2 non-linear (support vector machine [SVM] with radial kernel, random forest [RF]) ML approaches for predicting critical events defined by intensive care unit transfer, invasive ventilation and/or death (composite end-point: 181 patients). Models were compared for performance (area-under-the-receiver-operating characteristic-curve [AUC], Brier score) and predictor importance (performance-loss metrics, partial-dependence profiles). RESULTS: Models performed close with a small benefit for LR (utilizing restricted cubic splines for non-linearity) and RF (AUC means: 0.763-0.731 [RF-L1]); Brier scores: 0.184-0.197 [LR-L1]). Top ranked predictor variables (consistently highest importance: C-reactive protein) were largely identical across models, except creatinine, which exhibited marginal (L1, L2, EN, SVM) or high/non-linear effects (LR, RF) on events. CONCLUSIONS: Although the LR and ML models analysed showed no strong differences in performance and the most influencing predictors for COVID-19-related event prediction, our results indicate a predictive benefit from taking account for non-linear predictor-to-event relationships and effects. Future efforts should focus on leveraging data-driven ML technologies from static towards dynamic modelling solutions that continuously learn and adapt to changes in data environments during the evolving pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04659187.

Tula Virus as Causative Agent of Hantavirus Disease in Immunocompetent Person, Germany.

We report molecular evidence of Tula virus infection in an immunocompetent patient from Germany who had typical signs of hantavirus disease. Accumulating evidence indicates that Tula virus infection, although often considered nonpathogenic, represents a threat to human health.

Twenty-five years of biologicals in IBD: What´s all the hype about?

Twenty-five years ago the field was revolutionized by the introduction of infliximab as the first hybrid anti-TNF-antibody. Subsequently, other humanized anti-TNFs were developed and marketed, followed by antibodies to new targets including integrins (vedolizumab) and interleukin 12/23 (ustekinumab). All these so-called biologicals were shown in registrational trials to induce remission superior to placebo but consistently were effective in only a minority of patients. Even though in most trials only the responders were selected to continue on the respective medication for maintenance, many experienced a secondary loss of response and only a minority of usually <25% of the initial cohort achieved long-term (1 year) remission. In 'real life studies', the outcome was somewhat better, probably due to proper selection of patients and open, mostly retrospective study designs. A clear benefit of biologicals is apparent in otherwise treatment refractory patients, in extraintestinal manifestations and in Crohn´s disease (CD) with fistulizing complications. Biologicals achieve mucosal healing (MH) more often than corticosteroids or thiopurines, and MH is associated with improved prognosis. However, this does not justify escalating treatment until MH is reached since controlled trials proving this point of 'treat to target' are lacking both in ulcerative colitis and CD. Surgical rates have decreased with increasing use of biologicals, but disease progression has not been proven to improve. With the exception of opportunistic infections, serious adverse events are rare. In conclusion, biologicals have changed the scene considerably and expanded our armamentarium, but there is also a marketing hype fostering expectations without evidence.

Differences between treatment guidelines--Germany.

When looking at different treatment guidelines the topics most debated for Crohn's disease are the following: (a) the use of mesalamine for remission induction and maintenance in mild to moderate Crohn's disease; (b) the early use of anti-TNF antibodies in Crohn's disease with or without classical immunomodulators for remission induction, and (c) remission induction in steroid-refractory disease with anti-TNF antibodies or calcineurin inhibitors. The topics mentioned above will be discussed with regard to the statements of the German Gastroenterology Association (DGVS) on the basis of the underlying evidence.

[Inflammatory bowel disease: an overview]. / Chronisch-entzündliche Darmerkrankungen im Uberblick.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are the most common chronic inflammatory bowel diseases. The diagnosis is based on clinical presentation and endoscopic findings completed by histopathology. The therapeutic options range from topical antiinflammatory therapies to classical immunosuppression and biological agents, i. e. anti-TNF-antibodies. This manuscript gives an overview on the state of the art in diagnostics and therapy ofboth, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Therapeutic algorithms are based on the statements of the German consensus conferences.

Prioritization in inflammatory bowel disease therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Most guidelines for IBD still recommend step-by-step therapy with initially classic drugs such aminosalicylates (in ulcerative colitis) or steroids but avoid prioritizing certain biological drugs and JAK inhibitors in the complicated course. This review provides an aid to pending therapy decisions. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we analyze the evidence for Crohn's disease as well as ulcerative colitis in order to optimize and 'personalize' the choice of therapy, especially in difficult cases. The relevant publications in Pubmed were identified in a continuous literature review with the key words 'Crohn´s disease' and 'ulcerative colitis.' EXPERT OPINION: Based on this complex data set following standard therapies steroid-refractory Crohn´s disease should preferentially be treated with combined infliximab plus azathioprine or risankizumab, in second line after their failure with ustekinumab or 7adalimumab. In steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis infliximab plus azathioprine or upadacitinib should be preferred in first line, filgotinib, tofacitinib or ustekinumab in second line. A steroid-dependent course in both diseases requires azathioprine or vedolizumab, in second line infliximab or Janus kinase inhibitors. The conclusions drawn from these complex data may be helpful for individual decision making in daily clinical practice.

To STRIDE or not to STRIDE: a critique of "treat to target" in Crohn´s disease.

INTRODUCTION: The STRIDE consensus suggested to focus on mucosal healing, based on biomarkers and endoscopy, in addition to clinical endpoints as treatment target. This narrative review provides a critique of this concept in Crohn´s disease. AREAS COVERED: We analyze and discuss the limitations of endpoints as targets, their currently limited achievability, and the controversial evidence relating to 'treat to target.' The relevant publications in Pubmed were identified in a literature review with the key word 'Crohn´s disease.' EXPERT OPINION: All targets and endpoints have their limitations, and, even if reached, not all have unequivocally been shown to improve prognosis. The major deficiency of STRIDE is not only the lack of validation and agreement upon endpoints but little evidence of their achievability in a sizable proportion of patients by dose or timing adjustments or switching the medication. Above all, the concept should be based on clear evidence that patients indeed benefit from appropriate escalation of treatment and relevant controlled studies in this regard have been controversial. Until the STRIDE approach is proven to be superior to standard treatment focusing on clinical well-being, the field should remain reluctant and expect more convincing evidence before new targets are approved.

Is Dementia Associated with COVID-19 Mortality? A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study Conducted in 50 Hospitals in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Dementia has been identified as a major predictor of mortality associated with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between dementia and mortality in COVID-19 inpatients in Germany across a longer interval during the pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective study was based on anonymized data from 50 hospitals in Germany and included patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and July, 20, 2022. The main outcome of the study was the association of mortality during inpatient stays with dementia diagnosis, which was studied using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities as well as univariate logistic regression for matched pairs. RESULTS: Of 28,311 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 11.3% had a diagnosis of dementia. Prior to matching, 26.5% of dementia patients and 11.5% of non-dementia patients died; the difference decreased to 26.5% of dementia versus 21.7% of non-dementia patients within the matched pairs (n = 3,317). This corresponded to an increase in the risk of death associated with dementia (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.16-1.46) in the univariate regression conducted for matched pairs. CONCLUSION: Although dementia was associated with COVID-19 mortality, the association was weaker than in previously published studies. Further studies are needed to better understand whether and how pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions such as dementia may impact the course and outcome of COVID-19.

High In-Hospital Mortality in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients with Active Cancer Disease during Omicron Phase of the Pandemic: Insights from the CORONA Germany Study.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer have a worse outcome including a significant higher mortality, compared to non-cancer patients. However, limited data are available regarding in-hospital mortality during the Omicron phase of the pandemic. Therefore, the aim of the study was the comparison of mortality in patients with history of cancer and patients with active cancer disease during the different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the current Omicron variant of concern. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational, epidemiological cohort study at 45 hospitals in Germany. Until July 20, 2022, all adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality regarding cancer status (history of cancer and active cancer disease) and SARS-CoV-2 virus type. RESULTS: From March 11, 2020, to July 20, 2022, a total of 27,490 adult SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were included in the study. 2,578 patients (9.4%) had diagnosis of cancer, of whom 1,065 (41.3%) had history of cancer, whereas 1,513 (58.7%) had active cancer disease. Overall 3,749 out of the total of 27,490 patients (13.6%) died during the hospital stay. Patients with active cancer disease had a significantly higher mortality compared to patients without cancer diagnosis, in both phases of the pandemic (wild-type to Delta: OR 1.940 [1.646-2.285]); Omicron: 2.864 [2.354-3.486]). After adjustment to co-variables, SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with active cancer disease had the highest risk for in-hospital mortality compared to the other groups, in both phases of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The CORONA Germany study indicates that hospitalized patients with active cancer disease are at high risk of death during a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality of patients with history of cancer improved to nearly the level of non-cancer patients during Omicron phase.

Retinal Vascular Occlusion after COVID-19 Vaccination: More Coincidence than Causal Relationship? Data from a Retrospective Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is associated with the onset of retinal vascular occlusive disease (RVOD). METHODS: In this multicentre study, data from patients with central and branch retinal vein occlusion (CRVO and BRVO), central and branch retinal artery occlusion (CRAO and BRAO), and anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy (AION) were retrospectively collected during a 2-month index period (1 June-31 July 2021) according to a defined protocol. The relation to any previous vaccination was documented for the consecutive case series. Numbers of RVOD and COVID-19 vaccination were investigated in a case-by-case analysis. A case-control study using age- and sex-matched controls from the general population (study participants from the Gutenberg Health Study) and an adjusted conditional logistic regression analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-one subjects presenting during the index period (61 days) were enrolled: one hundred and twenty-one patients with CRVO, seventy-five with BRVO, fifty-six with CRAO, sixty-five with BRAO, and one hundred and four with AION. Three hundred and thirty-two (78.9%) patients had been vaccinated before the onset of RVOD. The vaccines given were BNT162b2/BioNTech/Pfizer (n = 221), followed by ChadOx1/AstraZeneca (n = 57), mRNA-1273/Moderna (n = 21), and Ad26.COV2.S/Johnson & Johnson (n = 11; unknown n = 22). Our case-control analysis integrating population-based data from the GHS yielded no evidence of an increased risk after COVID-19 vaccination (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.60-1.45, p = 0.75) in connection with a vaccination within a 4-week window. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there has been no evidence of any association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and a higher RVOD risk.

Azathioprine versus mesalazine for prevention of postoperative clinical recurrence in patients with Crohn's disease with endoscopic recurrence: efficacy and safety results of a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare azathioprine versus mesalazine tablets for the prevention of clinical recurrence in patients with postoperative Crohn's disease (CD) with moderate or severe endoscopic recurrence. METHODS: This was a 1 year, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised study which took place in 21 gastroenterology centres in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Israel. The study participants were 78 adults with CD who had undergone resection with ileocolonic anastomosis in the preceding 6-24 months without subsequent clinical recurrence and with a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) score <200, but with moderate or severe endoscopic recurrence. The study drugs were azathioprine 2.0-2.5 mg/kg/day or mesalazine 4 g/day over 1 year. The primary end point was therapeutic failure during 1 year, defined as a CDAI score > or = 200 and an increase of > or = 60 points from baseline, or study drug discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or intolerable adverse drug reaction. RESULTS: Treatment failure occurred in 22.0% (9/41) of azathioprine-treated patients and 10.8% (4/37) of mesalazine-treated patients, a difference of 11.1% (95% CI -5.0% to 27.3%, p=0.19). Clinical recurrence was significantly less frequent with azathioprine versus mesalazine (0/41 (0%) vs 4/37 (10.8%), p=0.031), whereas study drug discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions only occurred in azathioprine-treated patients (9/41 (22.0%) vs 0%, p=0.002). The proportion of patients showing > or = 1 point reduction in Rutgeerts score between baseline and month 12 was 63.3% (19/30) and 34.4% (11/32) in the azathioprine and mesalazine groups, respectively (p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with postoperative CD at high risk of clinical recurrence, superiority for azathioprine versus mesalazine could not be demonstrated for therapeutic failure.

Clinical outcome, risk assessment, and seasonal variation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients-Results from the CORONA Germany study.

BACKGROUND: After one year of the pandemic and hints of seasonal patterns, temporal variations of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 are widely unknown. Additionally, heterogeneous data regarding clinical indicators predicting disease severity has been published. However, there is a need for a risk stratification model integrating the effects on disease severity and mortality to support clinical decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational, prospective, epidemiological cohort study at 45 hospitals in Germany. Until 1 January 2021, all hospitalized SARS CoV-2 positive patients were included. A comprehensive data set was collected in a cohort of seven hospitals. The primary objective was disease severity and prediction of mild, severe, and fatal cases. Ancillary analyses included a temporal analysis of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients for the entire year 2020. FINDINGS: A total of 4704 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized with a mortality rate of 19% (890/4704). Rates of mortality, need for ventilation, pneumonia, and respiratory insufficiency showed temporal variations, whereas age had a strong influence on the course of mortality. In cohort conducting analyses, prognostic factors for fatal/severe disease were: age (odds ratio (OR) 1.704, CI:[1.221-2.377]), respiratory rate (OR 1.688, CI:[1.222-2.333]), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (OR 1.312, CI:[1.015-1.695]), C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR 2.132, CI:[1.533-2.965]), and creatinine values (OR 2.573, CI:[1.593-4.154]. CONCLUSIONS: Age, respiratory rate, LDH, CRP, and creatinine at baseline are associated with all cause death, and need for ventilation/ICU treatment in a nationwide series of COVID 19 hospitalized patients. Especially age plays an important prognostic role. In-hospital mortality showed temporal variation during the year 2020, influenced by age. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04659187.

Prognostic Impact of Acute Cardiovascular Events in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients-Results from the CORONA Germany Study.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial injury (AMJ), assessed by elevated levels of cardiac troponin, is associated with fatal outcome in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the role of acute cardiovascular (CV) events defined by clinical manifestation rather than sole elevations of biomarkers is unclear in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate acute clinically manifest CV events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: From 1 March 2020 to 5 January 2021, we conducted a multicenter, prospective, epidemiological cohort study at six hospitals from Hamburg, Germany (a portion of the state-wide 45-center CORONA Germany cohort study) enrolling all hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Primary endpoint was occurrence of a clinically manifest CV-event. RESULTS: In total, 132 CV-events occurred in 92 of 414 (22.2%) patients in the Hamburg-cohort: cardiogenic shock in 10 (2.4%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 12 (2.9%), acute coronary syndrome in 11 (2.7%), de-novo arrhythmia in 31 (7.5%), acute heart-failure in 43 (10.3%), myocarditis in 2 (0.5%), pulmonary-embolism in 11 (2.7%), thrombosis in 9 (2.2%) and stroke in 3 (0.7%). In the Hamburg-cohort, mortality was 46% (42/92) for patients with a CV-event and 33% (27/83) for patients with only AMJ without CV-event (OR 1.7, CI: (0.94-3.2), p = 0.077). Mortality was higher in patients with CV-events (Odds ratio(OR): 4.8, 95%-confidence-interval(CI): [2.9-8]). Age (OR 1.1, CI: (0.66-1.86)), atrial fibrillation (AF) on baseline-ECG (OR 3.4, CI: (1.74-6.8)), systolic blood-pressure (OR 0.7, CI: (0.53-0.96)), potassium (OR 1.3, CI: (0.99-1.73)) and C-reactive-protein (1.4, CI (1.04-1.76)) were associated with CV-events. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with clinical manifestation of acute cardiovascular events show an almost five-fold increased mortality. In this regard, the emergence of arrhythmias is a major determinant.

Determination of 6-thioguanosine diphosphate and triphosphate and nucleoside diphosphate kinase activity in erythrocytes: novel targets for thiopurine therapy?

6-Thioguanine nucleotides are the sum of 6-thioguanosine 5'-monophosphate (TGMP), -diphosphate (TGDP), and -triphosphate (TGTP) representing essential metabolites involved in drug action of thiopurines. Elevated levels of TGDP have been associated with poor response to azathioprine therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The conversion of TGDP to TGTP is supposed to be catalyzed by nucleoside diphosphate kinase (NDPK). The aim of this work was to investigate simultaneously individual 6-thioguanosine phosphate levels and NDPK activity in red blood cells (RBCs) of patients on azathioprine therapy. Ion-pair high-performance liquid chromatography methods with fluorescence and ultraviolet detection were applied to quantify individual levels of 6-thioguanosine 5'-phosphates and NDPK activity, respectively, in RBCs. Recombinantly expressed NDPK isoforms A and B were unequivocally identified to catalyze the formation of TGTP (30.6 +/- 3.88 nmol x min x mg for NDPK A versus 41.2 +/- 1.05 nmol x min x mg for NDPK B). Comprehensive analyses on the stability of TGMP, TGDP, and TGTP and the reproducibility of NDPK activity in RBCs were performed to provide a reliable sampling protocol for clinical practice. Of note, isolation of RBCs within 6 hours followed by immediate storage at -80 degrees C is crucial for prevention of degradation of 5'-phosphates. In a clinical study of 37 patients on azathioprine, TGTP was the predominant 6-thioguanosine phosphate in RBCs. In contrast, three patients showed TGTP/(TGDP + TGTP) ratios of 57.2%, 64.3%, and 66% corresponding to elevated TGDP levels. NDPK activity ranged from 4.1 to 11.3 nmol x min x mg hemoglobin. No correlation between NDPK activity and the 6-thioguanosine phosphate levels was found. The question whether interindividual variability of NDPK activity may explain differences in 6-thioguanosine 5'-phosphates levels has to be investigated in a prospective large-scale study.

Differences in goblet cell differentiation between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

Goblet cells are mucin-secreting intestinal cells forming the mucus layer that protects the mucosal surface. Ulcerative colitis (UC) has been associated with a defective colonic mucus layer and a reduced number of goblet cells. In experimental animals, colonic goblet cell differentiation is regulated by interacting transcription factors Hath1, KLF4 and the Notch, as well as Wnt pathways, whereas data in humans are limited. We investigated goblet cell differentiation factors and mucins in controls and in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). We performed real-time PCR for Hath1, KLF4, several ligands, receptors and target genes of the Notch and Wnt pathways, as well as several mucins in biopsies from the sigmoid colon of controls (n=21), Crohn's disease (CD, n=48) and UC (n=40). In addition, Hath1 protein was quantitated with Western blot and localized with immunohistochemistry. Notably, the degree of inflammation as measured by IL-8 and histology was similar in both disease entities. The proportion of goblet cells was lowered in both IBDs, but specifically diminished in the upper third of the crypt in UC. Comparable levels of inflammation induced both Hath1 (2.0-fold, p<0.001) and KLF4 (1.8-fold for KLF4, p=0.031) mRNA expression in CD but not in UC (0.8-0.9-fold, ns). The differential induction was confirmed for Hath1 protein using Western blot. Hath1 immunostaining was found mostly in the lower half of the colonic crypts. Hath1, KLF4 and the Notch target gene Hes1 were significantly (p<0.001) and positively correlated. Moreover, both Hath1 and KLF4 were correlated (p<0.001) with MUC1, MUC2 as well as MUC4 in all control and IBD cohorts. The results indicate that both transcription factors are key regulators of goblet cell differentiation and mucin formation in the human colon. Conspicuously, inflammation is associated with an enhanced goblet cell differentiation in CD but not in UC, a defect possibly of pathogenic importance.