Comparison of characteristics, predictors and outcomes between the first and second COVID-19 waves in a tertiary care centre in Switzerland: an observational analysis

Navigating the waves in Colombia: a cohort study of inpatient care during four COVID-19 waves

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the intricate dynamics between different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding variations in clinical outcomes is essential for informed public health decision-making. Comprehensive insights into these fluctuations can guide resource allocation, healthcare policies, and the development of effective interventions. This study aimed to compare the characteristics and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 at peak transmission points by including all patients attended during the first four pandemic waves in a referral center in Colombia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a prospective observational study of 2733 patients, clinical and demographic data were extracted from the Fundacion Valle de Lili's COVID-19 Registry, focusing on ICU admission, Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV), length of hospital stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Our analysis unveiled substantial shifts in patient care patterns. Notably, the proportion of patients receiving glucocorticoid therapy and experiencing secondary infections exhibited a pronounced decrease across waves (p < 0.001). Remarkably, there was a significant reduction in ICU admissions (62.83% vs. 51.23% vs. 58.23% vs. 46.70 %, p < 0.001), Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV) usage (39.25% vs. 32.22% vs. 31.22% vs. 21.55 %, p < 0.001), and Length of Hospital Stay (LOS) (9 vs. 8 vs. 8 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001) over the successive waves. Surprisingly, hospital mortality remained stable at approximately 18‒20 % (p > 0.05). Notably, vaccination coverage with one or more doses surged from 0 % during the initial waves to 66.71 % in the fourth wave.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasize the critical importance of adapting healthcare strategies to the evolving dynamics of the pandemic. The reduction in ICU admissions, IMV utilization, and LOS, coupled with the rise in vaccination rates, underscores the adaptability of healthcare systems. Hospital mortality's persistence may warrant further exploration of treatment strategies. These insights can inform public health responses, helping policymakers allocate resources effectively and tailor interventions to specific phases of the pandemic.

COVID-19 waves in an urban setting 2020-2022: an electronic medical record analysis

Background

Global and national surveillance efforts have tracked COVID-19 incidence and clinical outcomes, but few studies have compared comorbid conditions and clinical outcomes across each wave of the pandemic. We analyzed data from the COVID-19 registry of a large urban healthcare system to determine the associations between presenting comorbidities and clinical outcomes during the pandemic.

Methods

We analyzed registry data for all inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 from March 2020 through September 2022 (N = 44,499). Clinical outcomes were death, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Demographic and clinical outcomes data were analyzed overall and for each wave. Unadjusted and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to explore the associations between age, sex, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, and mortality.

Results

Waves 2 and 3 (Alpha and Delta variants) were associated with greater hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and mortality than other variants. Chronic pulmonary disease was the most common comorbid condition across all age groups and waves. Mortality rates were higher in older patients but decreased across all age groups in later waves. In every wave, mortality was associated with renal disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic pulmonary disease. Multivariable analysis found that liver disease and renal disease were significantly associated with mortality, hospitalization, and ICU admission, and diabetes was significantly associated with hospitalization and ICU admission.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 registry is a valuable resource to identify risk factors for clinical outcomes. Our findings may inform risk stratification and care planning for patients with COVID-19 based on age and comorbid conditions.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19 at a public-sector hospital over the first two waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Harare, Zimbabwe: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the clinical profile, complications, and outcomes of inpatients with COVID-19 at Parirenyatwa Hospital, Harare, across the first two waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and factors associated with mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study on all patients admitted to the COVID-19 unit. Data were extracted from medical records and negative binomial regression with robust standard errors was used to assess the association between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and mortality. Cox Regression was used for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Of 563 people admitted with COVID-19 between 2 July 2020 and 19 March 2021, 214 (38.0%) died, 340 were discharged and 9 transferred. The median age was 56 (IQR 44-68) years and 53.8% were male. Overall, 38.8% experienced a complication, the most common being acute kidney injury (17.9%) and hyperglycaemia (13.1%). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (41.3%) followed by diabetes (28.6%), HIV (12.1%), cardiovascular disease (10.9%) and chronic kidney disease (7.8%). Among participants who stayed in the ward for more than 1 night, mortality was higher in patients with comorbidity compared to those without any comorbidity (38.7% vs 25.5%, risk ratio (RR) = 1.52 (95% CI 1.11, 2.07), p = 0.008). After adjusting for oxygen saturation, comorbidities, sex and pregnancy, mortality was higher in the second wave than in the first (adjusted RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.51, p = 0.05). In the second wave 57/161 (35.4%) deaths were attributed to lack of resources, mainly human resources.

CONCLUSION

The mortality rate was high and clinical COVID-19 care needs to pay careful attention to patient monitoring for complications and management of comorbidities. This will require addressing the critical health workforce shortage issues. Prevention of COVID-19 including vaccination particularly among individuals with comorbidities remains a high priority.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves.

CONCLUSION

In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Associations between obstructive sleep apnea and COVID-19 infection and hospitalization among US adults

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Medical comorbidities increase the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. In some studies, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been identified as a comorbid condition that is associated with an increased prevalence of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization, but few have investigated this association in a general population. This study aimed to answer the following research question: In a general population, is OSA associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization and are these altered with COVID-19 vaccination?

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of a diverse sample of 15,057 US adults.

RESULTS

COVID-19 infection and hospitalization rates in the cohort were 38.9% and 2.9%, respectively. OSA or OSA symptoms were reported in 19.4%. In logistic regression models adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and comorbid medical conditions, OSA was positively associated with COVID-19 infection (adjusted odds ratio: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.39-1.79) and COVID-19 hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.17-2.05). In fully adjusted models, boosted vaccination status was protective against both infection and hospitalization. Boosted vaccination status attenuated the association between OSA and COVID-19 related hospitalization but not infection. Participants with untreated or symptomatic OSA were at greater risk for COVID-19 infection; those with untreated but not symptomatic OSA were more likely to be hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

In a general population sample, OSA is associated with a greater likelihood of having had a COVID-19 infection and a COVID-19 hospitalization with the greatest impact observed among persons experiencing OSA symptoms or who were untreated for their OSA. Boosted vaccination status attenuated the association between OSA and COVID-19-related hospitalization.

CITATION

Quan SF, Weaver MD, Czeisler MÉ, et al. Associations between obstructive sleep apnea and COVID-19 infection and hospitalization among U.S. adults. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(7):1303-1311.

Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Benefit of early awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether prone position plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared to usual care alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake prone position plus usual care (N = 135) or usual care alone (N = 132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Main secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days.

RESULTS

Median time spent each day in the prone position within 72 h of randomisation was 90 min (IQR 30-133). The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the prone position group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group [odds ratio adjusted for stratification (aOR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-1.35]. The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was lower in the prone position group than in the usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥ 95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.27, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Awake prone position plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the composite outcome of need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463 . Registered 27 April 2020.

Pulmonary Functional Outcomes at 3 Months in Critical COVID-19 Survivors Hospitalized during the First, Second, and Third Pandemic Waves

INTRODUCTION

Despite improved management of patients with COVID-19, we still ignore whether pharmacologic treatments and improved respiratory support have modified outcomes for intensive care unit (ICU) surviving patients of the three first consecutive waves (w) of the pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether developments in the management of ICU COVID-19 patients have positively impacted respiratory functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and chest CT scan patterns in ICU COVID-19 surviving patients at 3 months, according to pandemic waves.

METHODS

We prospectively included all patients admitted to the ICU of two university hospitals with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19. Data related to hospitalization (disease severity, complications), demographics, and medical history were collected. Patients were assessed 3 months post-ICU discharge using a 6 min walking distance test (6MWT), a pulmonary function test (PFT), a respiratory muscle strength (RMS) test, a chest CT scan, and a Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire.

RESULTS

We included 84 ARDS COVID-19 surviving patients. Disease severity, complications, demographics, and comorbidities were similar between groups, but there were more women in wave 3 (w3). Length of stay at the hospital was shorter during w3 vs. during wave 1 (w1) (23.4 ± 14.2 days vs. 34.7 ± 20.8 days, p = 0.0304). Fewer patients required mechanical ventilation (MV) during the second wave (w2) vs. during w1 (33.3% vs. 63.9%, p = 0.0038). Assessment at 3 months after ICU discharge revealed that PFTs and 6MWTs scores were worse for w3 > w2 > w1. QoL (SF-36) deteriorated (vitality and mental health) more for patients in w1 vs. in w3 (64.7 ± 16.3 vs. 49.2 ± 23.2, p = 0.0169). Mechanical ventilation was associated with reduced forced expiratory volume (FEV1), total lung capacity (TLC), diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), and respiratory muscle strength (RMS) (w1,2,3, p < 0.0500) on linear/logistic regression analysis. The use of glucocorticoids, as well as tocilizumab, was associated with improvements in the number of affected segments in chest CT, FEV1, TLC, and DLCO (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

With better understanding and management of COVID-19, there was an improvement in PFT, 6MWT, and RMS in ICU survivors 3 months after ICU discharge, regardless of the pandemic wave during which they were hospitalized. However, immunomodulation and improved best practices for the management of COVID-19 do not appear to be sufficient to prevent significant morbidity in critically ill patients.

Comparative Study of the Myocardium of Patients from Four COVID-19 Waves

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared COVID-19 patients from different waves. This study aims to conduct a clinical and morphological analysis of patients who died from COVID-19 during four waves.

METHODS

The study involved 276 patients who died from COVID-19 during four waves, including 77 patients in the first wave, 119 patients in the second wave, and 78 patients in the third wave. We performed a histological examination of myocardium samples from autopsies and additionally analyzed the samples by PCR. We conducted immunohistochemistry of the myocardium for 21 samples using antibodies against CD3, CD45, CD8, CD68, CD34, Ang1, VWF, VEGF, HLA-DR, MHC1, C1q, enteroviral VP1, and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We also did immunofluorescent staining of three myocardial specimens using VP1/SARS-CoV-2 antibody cocktails. Further, we ran RT-ddPCR analysis for 14 RNA samples extracted from paraffin-embedded myocardium. Electron microscopic studies of the myocardium were also performed for two samples from the fourth wave.

RESULTS

Among the 276 cases, active myocarditis was diagnosed in 5% (15/276). Of these cases, 86% of samples expressed VP1, and individual cells contained SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in 22%. Immunofluorescence confirmed the co-localization of VP1 and SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. ddPCR did not confidently detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the myocardium in any myocarditis cases. However, the myocardium sample from wave IV detected a sub-threshold signal of SARS-CoV-2 by qPCR, but myocarditis in this patient was not confirmed. Electron microscopy showed several single particles similar to SARS-CoV-2 virions on the surface of the endothelium of myocardial vessels. A comparison of the cardiovascular complication incidence between three waves revealed that the incidence of hemorrhage (48 vs. 24 vs. 17%), myocardial necrosis (18 vs. 11 vs. 4%), blood clots in the intramural arteries (12 vs. 7 vs. 0%), and myocarditis (19 vs. 1 vs. 6%) decreased over time, and CD8-T-killers appeared. Immunohistochemistry confirmed the presence of endotheliitis in all 21 studied cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study compared myocardial damage in patients who died during three COVID-19 waves and showed a decrease in the incidence of endotheliitis complications (thrombosis, hemorrhage, necrosis) and myocarditis over time. However, the connection between myocarditis and SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unproven.

Insights from comparison of the clinical presentation and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in an Italian internal medicine ward during first and third wave

Background

The reasons of variability of clinical presentation of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) across different pandemic waves are not fully understood, and may include individual risk profile, SARS-CoV-2 lineage and seasonal variations of viral spread. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with confirmed coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in the same season during the first (March 2020) and the third pandemic wave (March 2021, dominance of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage) in an internal medicine ward of a large teaching hospital in Italy.

Materials and methods

Data of 769 unvaccinated patients (399 from the first and 370 from the third wave) were collected from clinical records, including symptom type and duration, extension of lung abnormalities on chest computed tomography (CT) and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on admission arterial blood gas analysis.

Results

Third wave patients were in average younger (median 65, interquartile range [IQR] 55-75, vs. 72, IQR 61-81 years old, p < 0.001), with less comorbidities and better pulmonary (CT visual score median 25, IQR 15-40, vs. 30, IQR 15-50, age- and sex-adjusted p = 0.017) and respiratory involvement (PaO₂/FiO₂ median 288, IQR 237-338, vs. 233, IQR 121-326 mmHg, age- and sex-adjusted p < 0.001) than first wave patients. Hospital mortality was lower (19% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), but not for subjects over 75 years old (46 vs. 49%). Age, number of chronic illnesses, PCT levels, CT visual score [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.022, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.009-1.036, p < 0.001] and PaO₂/FiO₂ (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.988-0.994, p < 0.001), but not the pandemic wave, were associated with mortality on stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

Despite the higher virulence of B.1.1.7 lineage, we detected milder clinical presentation and improved mortality in patients hospitalized during the third COVID-19 wave, with involvement of younger subjects. The reasons of this discrepancy are unclear, but could involve the population effect of vaccination campaigns, that were being conducted primarily in older frail subjects during the third wave.

Characteristics and Outcomes of People With Gout Hospitalized Due to COVID ‐19: Data From the COVID ‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician‐Reported Registry

Objective

To describe people with gout who were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and hospitalized and to characterize their outcomes.

Methods

Data on patients with gout hospitalized for COVID‐19 between March 12, 2020, and October 25, 2021, were extracted from the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographics, comorbidities, medication exposures, and COVID‐19 outcomes including oxygenation or ventilation support and death.

Results

One hundred sixty‐three patients with gout who developed COVID‐19 and were hospitalized were included. The mean age was 63 years, and 85% were male. The majority of the group lived in the Western Pacific Region (35%) and North America (18%). Nearly half (46%) had two or more comorbidities, with hypertension (56%), cardiovascular disease (28%), diabetes mellitus (26%), chronic kidney disease (25%), and obesity (23%) being the most common. Glucocorticoids and colchicine were used pre‐COVID‐19 in 11% and 12% of the cohort, respectively. Over two thirds (68%) of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization. COVID‐19‐related death was reported in 16% of the overall cohort, with 73% of deaths documented in people with two or more comorbidities.

Conclusion

This cohort of people with gout and COVID‐19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death. This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID‐19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.

Overweight and obesity are not associated with worse clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients treated with fixed-dose 6 mg dexamethasone

Objective

A fixed 6 mg dexamethasone dose for 10 days is the standard treatment for all hospitalised COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. Yet, the pharmacokinetic properties of dexamethasone can lead to diminishing systemic dexamethasone exposure with increasing body mass index (BMI). The present study examines whether this translates to overweight and obesity being associated with worse clinical outcomes, defined as ICU admission or in hospital death, in COVID-19 patients treated with fixed-dose dexamethasone.

Methods

We conducted a single centre retrospective cohort study in COVID-19 patients who were admitted to a non-ICU ward and were treated with dexamethasone (6 mg once daily for a maximum of ten days) between June 2020 and January 2021. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between BMI-categories and an unfavourable clinical course (ICU admission and/or in hospital death). Analyses were adjusted for age, comorbidities, inflammatory status, and oxygen requirement at admission. For reference, similar analyses were repeated in a cohort of patients hospitalised before dexamethasone was introduced (March 2020 through May 2020).

Results

In patients treated with dexamethasone (n = 385) an unfavourable clinical course was most prevalent in patients with normal weight (BMI < 25) compared to patients with overweight (BMI 25–30) and patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30) with percentages of 33, 26 and 21% respectively. In multivariable analyses, there was no association between BMI-category and an unfavourable clinical course (respectively with aORs of 0.81 (0.43–1.53) and 0.61 (0.30–1.27) with normal weight as reference). In the reference cohort (n = 249) the opposite was observed with an unfavourable clinical course being most prevalent in patients with overweight (39% vs 28%; aOR 2.17 (0.99–4.76)). In both cohorts, CRP level at admission was higher and lymphocyte count was lower in patients with normal weight compared to patients with obesity.

Conclusions

Overweight and obesity are not associated with an unfavourable clinical course in COVID-19 patients admitted to a non-ICU ward and treated with 6 mg dexamethasone once daily.

Does awake prone positioning prevent the use of mechanical respiratory support or death in COVID-19 patients on standard oxygen therapy hospitalised in general wards? A multicentre randomised controlled trial: the PROVID-19 protocol

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is responsible of severe hypoxaemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning improves oxygenation and survival in sedated mechanically patients with ARDS not related to COVID-19. Awake prone positioning is a simple and safe technique which improves oxygenation in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesised that early prone positioning in COVID-19 patients breathing spontaneously in medical wards could decrease the rates of intubation or need for noninvasive ventilation or death.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PROVID-19 is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre randomised, controlled, superiority trial comparing awake prone positioning to standard of care in hypoxaemic COVID-19 patients in 20 medical wards in France and Monaco. Patients are randomised to receive either awake prone position plus usual care or usual care alone with stratification on centres, body mass index and severity of hypoxaemia.The study objective is to compare the rate of treatment failure defined as a composite endpoint comprising the need for non-invasive ventilation (at two pressure levels) or for intubation or death, between the intervention group (awake prone position plus usual care) and the usual care (usual care alone) group at 28 days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol and amendments have been approved by the ethics committees (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest VI, France, no 1279 HPS2 and Comité Consultatif d'Ethique en matière de Recherche Biomédicale, Monaco, no 2020.8894 AP/jv), and patients are included after written informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04363463.

Differences in clinical features and mortality in very old unvaccinated patients (≥ 80 years) hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first and successive waves from the multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry (Spain)

Background

Old age is one of the most important risk factors for severe COVID-19. Few studies have analyzed changes in the clinical characteristics and prognosis of COVID-19 among older adults before the availability of vaccines. This work analyzes differences in clinical features and mortality in unvaccinated very old adults during the first and successive COVID-19 waves in Spain.

Methods

This nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study analyzes unvaccinated patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Patients were classified according to whether they were admitted in the first wave (March 1-June 30, 2020) or successive waves (July 1-December 31, 2020). The endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, expressed as the case fatality rate (CFR).

Results

Of the 21,461 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 5,953 (27.7%) were ≥ 80 years (mean age [IQR]: 85.6 [82.3–89.2] years). Of them, 4,545 (76.3%) were admitted during the first wave and 1,408 (23.7%) during successive waves. Patients hospitalized in successive waves were older, had a greater Charlson Comorbidity Index and dependency, less cough and fever, and met fewer severity criteria at admission (qSOFA index, PO2/FiO2 ratio, inflammatory parameters). Significant differences were observed in treatments used in the first (greater use of antimalarials, lopinavir, and macrolides) and successive waves (greater use of corticosteroids, tocilizumab and remdesivir). In-hospital complications, especially acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia, were less frequent in patients hospitalized in successive waves, except for heart failure. The CFR was significantly higher in the first wave (44.1% vs. 33.3%; -10.8%; p < 0.001) and was higher among patients ≥ 95 years (54.4% vs. 38.5%; -15.9%; p < 0.001). After adjustments to the model, the probability of death was 33% lower in successive waves (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.57–0.79).

Conclusions

Mortality declined significantly between the first and successive waves in very old unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Spain. This decline could be explained by a greater availability of hospital resources and more effective treatments as the pandemic progressed, although other factors such as changes in SARS-CoV-2 virulence cannot be ruled out.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03191-4.

Comparison of demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics between first and second COVID-19 waves in a secondary care hospital in Qatar: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the patient profile and outcomes in Qatar during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

SETTING

A retrospective observational study was conducted comparing the demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to a secondary care hospital, during the first and second waves of the pandemic.

PARTICIPANTS

1039 patients from the first wave and 991 from the second wave who had pneumonia on chest X-ray and had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by a real-time PCR test of a nasopharyngeal swab were included. Patients with a normal chest X-ray and those who had a negative PCR test despite a positive COVID-19 antigen test were excluded.

OUTCOME

Length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, final disposition and mortality were the key outcomes studied RESULTS: Influenza like symptoms (18.5% in the first wave vs 36.1% in the second wave, p 0.001), cough (79.2% vs 87%, p<0.001) and dyspnoea (27.5% vs 38% p<0.001) were more common in the second wave. Second wave patients had significantly higher respiratory rate, lower peripheral oxygen saturation, needed more supplemental oxygen and had higher incidence of pulmonary embolism. More patients received hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics during the first wave and more received steroids, antivirals and interleukin-1 antagonist during the second wave. The second wave had a shorter length of stay (14.58±7.75 vs 12.61±6.16, p<0.001) and more patients were discharged home (22% vs 10%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who presented during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic appeared to be more ill clinically and based on their laboratory parameters. They required shorter hospitalisation and were more likely to be discharged home. This could represent greater expertise in handling such patients that was acquired during the first wave as well as use of more appropriate and combination therapies during the second wave.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a Brazilian hospital: a retrospective study of the first and second waves

•

This study describes the characteristics and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Brazilian hospital.

•

Characteristics from the first and second waves were compared.

•

The number of cases was higher in the second wave, but hospitalizations were lower, compared with the first wave.

•

Admission and death rates were slightly lower in the study hospital compared with national rates.

•

This study can help managers to plan resources needed for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Objectives

To describe clinical characteristics, hospitalization flow and outcomes in a cohort of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Brazilian hospital in the first and second waves of the pandemic.

Methods

This retrospective, observational study included patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were evaluated in the emergency department (ED) between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2021. Descriptive statistics have been used to report clinical characteristics, admissions and outcomes. Comparison between the two waves was inferred using hypothesis test techniques.

Results

During the study period, 7723 (86.54%) patients were evaluated in the ED, of which 1908 (24.70%) were admitted. Of these, 476 (24.95%) patients were initially allocated to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 1432 (75.05%) to the general ward. Of the patients initially allocated to the general ward, 349 (24.37%) were later transferred to the ICU. One hundred and fifty-eight patients were intubated (19.15% of ICU admissions) and 110 patients died (5.77% of all admissions). In the second wave, the admission rates decreased in both the ICU (from 13.84% to 9.56%; P<0.01) and the general ward (from 22.41% to 17.16%; P<0.01). The average age in the second wave decreased from 44.06 to 41.87 years (P<0.01). Patients with severe symptoms, such as dyspnoea, decreased from 25.51% to 13.13% (P<0.01) in the second wave. The death rate among admitted patients decreased by 17.84% (from 6.52% to 5.38%; P<0.01).

Conclusion

Despite the greater number of patients in the second wave, the admission and death rates were lower compared with the first wave. The mean age of patients was lower in the second wave, and patients arrived at the hospital with less severe symptoms compared with the first wave.

Comparison of the clinical presentation across two waves of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Only a few studies have performed comprehensive comparisons between hospitalized patients from different waves of COVID-19. Thus, we aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and laboratory data of patients admitted to the western part of Denmark during the first and second waves of COVID-19 in 2020. Furthermore, we aimed to identify risk factors for critical COVID-19 disease and to describe the available information on the sources of infection.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of medical records from 311 consecutive hospitalized patients, 157 patients from wave 1 and 154 patients from wave 2. The period from March 7 to June 30, 2020, was considered wave 1, and the period from July 1st to December 31, 2020, was considered wave 2. Data are presented as the total study population, as a comparison between waves 1 and 2, and as a comparison between patients with and without critical COVID-19 disease (nonsurvivors and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)).

RESULTS

Patients admitted during the first COVID-19 wave experienced a more severe course of disease than patients admitted during wave 2. Admissions to the ICU and fatal disease were significantly higher among patients admitted during wave 1 compared to wave 2. The percentage of patients infected at hospital decreased in wave 2 compared to wave 1, whereas more patients were infected at home during wave 2. We found no significant differences in sociodemographics, lifestyle information, or laboratory data in the comparison of patients from waves 1 and 2. However, age, sex, smoking status, comorbidities, fever, and dyspnea were identified as risk factors for critical COVID-19 disease. Furthermore, we observed significantly increased levels of C-reactive protein and creatinine, and lower hemoglobin levels among patients with critical disease.

CONCLUSIONS

At admission, patients were more severely ill during wave 1 than during wave 2, and the outcomes were worse during wave 1. We confirmed previously identified risk factors for critical COVID-19 disease. In addition, we found that most COVID-19 infections were acquired at home.

COVID-19 Autopsies Reveal Underreporting of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Scarcity of Co-infections

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality can be estimated based on reliable mortality data. Variable testing procedures and heterogeneous disease course suggest that a substantial number of COVID-19 deaths is undetected. To address this question, we screened an unselected autopsy cohort for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 and a panel of common respiratory pathogens. Lung tissues from 62 consecutive autopsies, conducted during the first and second COVID-19 pandemic waves in Switzerland, were analyzed for bacterial, viral and fungal respiratory pathogens including SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 28 lungs of 62 deceased patients (45%), although only 18 patients (29%) were reported to have COVID-19 at the time of death. In 23 patients (37% of all), the clinical cause of death and/or autopsy findings together with the presence of SARS-CoV-2 suggested death due to COVID-19. Our autopsy results reveal a 16% higher SARS-CoV-2 infection rate and an 8% higher SARS-CoV-2 related mortality rate than reported by clinicians before death. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (75%) did not suffer from respiratory co-infections, as long as they were treated with antibiotics. In the lungs of 5 patients (8% of all), SARS-CoV-2 was found, yet without typical clinical and/or autopsy findings. Our findings suggest that underreporting of COVID-19 contributes substantially to excess mortality. The small percentage of co-infections in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients who died with typical COVID-19 symptoms strongly suggests that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients died from and not with the virus.

Long-Term Persisting SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Pathological Findings: Lessons Learnt From a Series of 35 COVID-19 Autopsies

BACKGROUND

Long-term sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the interaction between persisting viral-RNA and specific tissue involvement, pose a challenging issue. In this study, we addressed the chronological correlation (after first clinical diagnosis and postmortem) between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and organ involvement.

METHODS

The presence of postmortem SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 35 complete COVID-19 autopsies was correlated with the time interval between the first diagnosis of COVID-19 and death and with its relationship to morphologic findings.

RESULTS

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA can be evident up to 40 days after the first diagnosis and can persist to 94 hours after death. Postmortem SARS-CoV-2 RNA was mostly positive in lungs (70%) and trachea (69%), but all investigated organs were positive with variable frequency. Late-stage tissue damage was evident up to 65 days after initial diagnosis in several organs. Positivity for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pulmonary swabs correlated with diffuse alveolar damage (p = 0.0009). No correlation between positive swabs and other morphologic findings was present. Cerebral (p = 0.0003) and systemic hemorrhages (p = 0.009), cardiac thrombi (p = 0.04), and ischemic events (p = 0.03) were more frequent in the first wave, whereas bacterial pneumonia (p = 0.03) was more prevalent in the second wave. No differences in biometric data, clinical comorbidities, and other autopsy findings were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide evidence not only of long-term postmortem persisting SARS-CoV-2 RNA but also of tissue damage several weeks after the first diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional conditions, such as concomitant bacterial pulmonary superinfection, lung aspergillosis, thromboembolic phenomena, and hemorrhages can further worsen tissue damage.

Call, chosen, HA2T2, ANDC: validation of four severity scores in COVID-19 patients

Purpose

To externally validate four previously developed severity scores (i.e., CALL, CHOSEN, HA₂T₂ and ANDC) in patients with COVID-19 hospitalised in a tertiary care centre in Switzerland.

Methods

This observational analysis included adult patients with a real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction or rapid-antigen test confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection hospitalised consecutively at the Cantonal Hospital Aarau from February to December 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary endpoint was disease progression, defined as needing invasive ventilation, ICU admission or death.

Results

From 399 patients (mean age 66.6 years ± 13.4 SD, 68% males), we had complete data for calculating the CALL, CHOSEN, HA₂T₂ and ANDC scores in 297, 380, 151 and 124 cases, respectively. Odds ratios for all four scores showed significant associations with mortality. The discriminative power of the HA₂T₂ score was higher compared to CALL, CHOSEN and ANDC scores [area under the curve (AUC) 0.78 vs. 0.65, 0.69 and 0.66, respectively]. Negative predictive values (NPV) for mortality were high, particularly for the CALL score (≥ 6 points: 100%, ≥ 9 points: 95%). For disease progression, discriminative power was lower, with the CHOSEN score showing the best performance (AUC 0.66).

Conclusion

In this external validation study, the four analysed scores had a lower performance compared to the original cohorts regarding prediction of mortality and disease progression. However, all scores were significantly associated with mortality and the NPV of the CALL and CHOSEN scores in particular allowed reliable identification of patients at low risk, making them suitable for outpatient management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01728-0.