Search

Background: When the COVID-19 pandemic commenced in 2020, scientists assisted medical specialists with diagnostic algorithm development. One scientific research area related to COVID-19 diagnosis was medical imaging and its potential to support molecular tests. Unfortunately, several systems reported high accuracy in development but did not fare well in clinical application. The reason was poor generalization, a long-standing issue in AI development. Researchers found many causes of this issue and decided to refer to them as confounders, meaning a set of artefacts and methodological errors associated with the method. We aim to contribute to this steed by highlighting an undiscussed confounder related to image resolution., Methods: 20 216 chest X-ray images (CXR) from worldwide centres were analyzed. The CXRs were bijectively projected into the 2D domain by performing Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) embedding on the radiomic features (rUMAP) or CNN-based neural features (nUMAP) from the pre-last layer of the pre-trained classification neural network. Additional 44 339 thorax CXRs were used for validation. The comprehensive analysis of the multimodality of the density distribution in rUMAP/nUMAP domains and its relation to the original image properties was used to identify the main confounders., Results: nUMAP revealed a hidden bias of neural networks towards the image resolution, which the regular up-sampling procedure cannot compensate for. The issue appears regardless of the network architecture and is not observed in a high-resolution dataset. The impact of the resolution heterogeneity can be partially diminished by applying advanced deep-learning-based super-resolution networks., Conclusions: rUMAP and nUMAP are great tools for image homogeneity analysis and bias discovery, as demonstrated by applying them to COVID-19 image data. Nonetheless, nUMAP could be applied to any type of data for which a deep neural network could be constructed. Advanced image super-resolution solutions are needed to reduce the impact of the resolution diversity on the classification network decision., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors declares a conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In a retrospective analysis of 477 fatal COVID-19 cases hospitalised at a single medical centre during the period from 6 March 2020 to 30 June 2022, several factors defining those patients at admission were assessed, as well as the course of the hospitalisation and factors contributing to death. There was a predominance of men (59.3% (283)) burdened by comorbidities, with increased inflammation at admission. Patients aged ≥ 81 years were significantly more likely to be admitted to and die in infectious diseases units (IDU) due to respiratory failure, their hospital stays were shorter, and they were most likely not to receive specialist treatment. The most common COVID-19 complications included acute kidney injury in 31.2% (149) patients and thromboembolic complications in 23.5% (112). The course of hospitalisation was complicated by healthcare-associated infections (HAI) in 33.3% (159) of cases, more often in those treated with baricitinib ( p < 0.001). The initial use of an antibiotic, although common (94.8% (452)), was unwarranted in almost half of the cases (47.6% (215)). Complications of hospitalisation (46.1% (220)) and adverse events involving staff (49.7% (237)) were found in almost half of the patients. In 88.7% (423) of the cases, death was due to respiratory failure in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Adverse events during hospitalisation should be considered as an additional factor that, in addition to the infection itself, may have influenced the death of patients.

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put healthcare systems worldwide to their limits, resulting in increased waiting time for diagnosis and required medical assistance. With chest radiographs (CXR) being one of the most common COVID-19 diagnosis methods, many artificial intelligence tools for image-based COVID-19 detection have been developed, often trained on a small number of images from COVID-19-positive patients. Thus, the need for high-quality and well-annotated CXR image databases increased. This paper introduces POLCOVID dataset, containing chest X-ray (CXR) images of patients with COVID-19 or other-type pneumonia, and healthy individuals gathered from 15 Polish hospitals. The original radiographs are accompanied by the preprocessed images limited to the lung area and the corresponding lung masks obtained with the segmentation model. Moreover, the manually created lung masks are provided for a part of POLCOVID dataset and the other four publicly available CXR image collections. POLCOVID dataset can help in pneumonia or COVID-19 diagnosis, while the set of matched images and lung masks may serve for the development of lung segmentation solutions., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: About 20% of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop COVID-19-the disease that has dominated health care in the last two years. The course of COVID-19 in patients with advanced liver disease tends to be severe, patients also suffer from a higher risk of complications and death. The primary object of this study was to assess the risk and causes of death in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Materials and Methods: From a group of 4,314 patients hospitalized at Jerzy Gromkowski Regional Specialist Hospital in Wroclaw (Poland) due to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection between March 15, 2020, and January 31, 2022, we selected a cohort of 31 patients with liver cirrhosis (12 women and 19 men) and 7 patients with HCC developed on the cirrhotic liver (1 woman, 6 men). The control group included 123 patients without liver disease. In the entire cohort, we analyzed the course of COVID-19 infection, baseline oxygen demand, liver function (assessed using the CTP-Child-Turoctte-Pugh score and MELD-Model of End-Stage Liver Disease scales), length of hospitalization, development of acute-on-chronic liver failure, and deaths., Results: The mean age of the patients was 56.6 years in the liver cirrhosis group, 63.3 years for patients with (HCC) hepatocellular carcinoma, and 64 years in the control group. Time of hospitalization averaged 15.52 days and 11.14 days for patients with liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, respectively. For the control group, the average duration of the hospital stay was 11.61 days. With respect to baseline liver function assessed using the CTP score, in the cirrhosis group 10 patients were CTP class A, 19 patients were class B and 9 patients were class C. The cancer group included 3 patients with class A, 2 patients with class B, and 2 patients with class C. In the studied cohort, 22 patients had a baseline MELD score < 12 points, and in 15 patients was > 12. In the HCC group, it was, respectively, CTP A:3, B: 2, C: 2, and MELD < 12: 3, ≥12: 4 people. Most of these patients presented with a progression of liver disease. Fifteen patients died, including 12 with cirrhosis and 3 with HCC, accounting for 39.47% in the entire cohort, 39% in the cirrhotic group and 43% in the HCC group, and 13 in the control group (10.6%), There was a clear statistical difference between the mortality rate in the group with liver disease and in the control group., Conclusions: Infection with SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 in patients with cirrhosis and HCC tends to have a more severe course and leads to exacerbation of the liver disease. The most common cause of death in the analyzed cohort infected with SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 was the progression of liver disease, complicated by liver failure., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) constitutes a major health burden worldwide due to high mortality rates and hospital bed shortages. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with several laboratory abnormalities. We aimed to develop and validate a risk score based on simple demographic and laboratory data that could be used on admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection to predict in-hospital mortality., Methods: Three cohorts of patients from different hospitals were studied consecutively (developing, validation, and prospective cohorts). The following demographic and laboratory data were obtained from medical records: sex, age, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), platelets, leukocytes, sodium, potassium, creatinine, and C-reactive protein (CRP). For each variable, classification and regression tree analysis were used to establish the cut-off point(s) associated with in-hospital mortality outcome based on data from developing cohort and before they were used for analysis in the validation and prospective cohort. The covid-19 score was calculated as a sum of cut-off points associated with mortality outcome., Results: The developing, validation, and prospective cohorts included 129, 239, and 497 patients, respectively (median age, 71, 67, and 70 years, respectively). The following cut of points associated with in-hospital mortality: age > 56 years, male sex, hemoglobin < 10.55 g/dL, MCV > 92.9 fL, leukocyte count > 9.635 or < 2.64 10 3 /µL, platelet count, < 81.49 or > 315.5 10 3 /µL, CRP > 51.14 mg/dL, creatinine > 1.115 mg/dL, sodium < 134.7 or > 145.4 mEq/L, and potassium < 3.65 or > 6.255 mEq/L. The AUC of the covid-19 score for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.89 (0.84-0.95), 0.850 (0.75-0.88), and 0.773 (0.731-0.816) in the developing, validation, and prospective cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001The mortality of the prospective cohort stratified on the basis of the covid-19 score was as follows: 0-2 points,4.2%; 3 points, 15%; 4 points, 29%; 5 points, 38.2%; 6 and more points, 60%., Conclusion: The covid-19 score based on simple demographic and laboratory parameters may become an easy-to-use, widely accessible, and objective tool for predicting mortality in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Lung imaging, next to a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, is a key diagnostic tool in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The degree of abnormalities correlates with clinical outcome. Imaging of the lungs using chest radiography (CXR) at the peak of a pandemic is considered a basic diagnostic tool at the triage stage. The CXR images are less characteristic than computed tomography (CT) and should be interpreted with a combination of clinical findings., Objectives: Comparison of the usefulness of 2 CXR severity scores to evaluate the presence/severity of inflammation in the course of COVID-19 and the possibility of a non-radiologist to interpret the image independently., Material and Methods: Retrospective analysis of the medical records of 152 consecutive patients (aged 19-96, 73 men), infected with SARS-CoV-2, confirmed using real-time PCR (RT-PCR). Five-point and twelve-point CXR severity scoring systems were used (independently by a radiologist and a referring physician) to assess the severity of inflammation., Results: In 77 of 152 cases, the CXR revealed features of inflammation. Bilateral abnormalities were found in 48/77 (62.3%) cases. Statistically, the lower lobes were involved more often than the upper ones (p < 0.001) and the left lobe more often than the right one (p < 0.001). The intensity of the abnormalities using both scales correlated with the persistence of symptoms (p = 0.0133 and p = 0.0403). A positive and statistically significant correlation was found between both scales and dyspnea, decreased oxygen saturation, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, and alanine aminotransferase activity. The interobserver agreement analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in the CXR severity score using the five-point (B = 0.8345, kappa = 0.82; p = 0.1480) or the twelve-point scale (B = 0.8219, kappa = 0.77; p = 0.0502)., Conclusions: The CXR severity score is a useful tool to assess the inflammation in the initial diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Quantifying lung abnormalities accurately may be performed by a referring physician. Both CXR severity scales correlate well with clinical parameters.

The dysregulation of both the innate and adaptive responses to SARS-CoV-2 have an impact on the course of COVID-19, and play a role in the clinical outcome of the disease. Here, we performed a comprehensive analysis of peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations in 82 patients with COVID-19, including 31 patients with a critical course of the disease. In COVID-19 patients who required hospitalization we analyzed T cell subsets, including Treg cells, as well as TCRα/β and γ/δ, NK cells, and B cells, during the first two weeks after admission to hospital due to the SARS-CoV-2 infection, with marked reductions in leukocytes subpopulations, especially in critically ill COVID-19 patients. We showed decreased levels of Th, Ts cells, Treg cells (both naïve and induced), TCRα/β and γ/δ cells, as well as CD16+CD56+NK cells in ICU compared to non-ICU COVID-19 patients. We observed impaired function of T and NK cells in critically ill COVID-19 patients with extremely low levels of secreted cytokines. We found that the IL-2/INFγ ratio was the strongest indicator of a critical course of COVID-19, and was associated with fatal outcomes. Our findings showed markedly impaired innate and adaptive responses in critically ill COVID-19 patients, and suggest that the immunosuppressive state in the case of a critical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection might reflect subsequent clinical deterioration and predict a fatal outcome.

Introduction: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) is used to objectively assess the degree of parenchymal impairment in COVID-19 pneumonia., Materials and Methods: Retrospective study on 61 COVID-19 patients (severe and non-severe; 33 men, age 63+/-15 years) who underwent a CT scan due to tachypnea, dyspnoea or desaturation. QCT was performed using VCAR software. Patients' clinical data was collected, including laboratory results and oxygenation support. The optimal cut-off point for CT parameters for predicting death and respiratory support was performed by maximizing the Youden Index in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis., Results: The analysis revealed significantly greater progression of changes: ground-glass opacities (GGO) (31,42% v 13,89%, p<0.001), consolidation (11,85% v 3,32%, p<0.001) in patients with severe disease compared to non-severe disease. Five lobes were involved in all patients with severe disease. In non-severe patients, a positive correlation was found between severity of GGO, consolidation and emphysema and sex, tachypnea, chest x-ray (CXR) score on admission and laboratory parameters: CRP, D-dimer, ALT, lymphocyte count and lymphocyte/neutrophil ratio. In the group of severe patients, a correlation was found between sex, creatinine level and death. ROC analysis on death prediction was used to establish the cut-off point for GGO at 24.3% (AUC 0.8878, 95% CI 0.7889-0.9866; sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 75.5%), 5.6% for consolidation (AUC 0.7466, 95% CI 0.6009-0.8923; sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 59.2%), and 37.8% for total (GGO+consolidation) (AUC 0.8622, 95% CI 0.7525-0.972; sensitivity 75%, specificity 83.7%). The cut-off point for predicting respiratory support was established for GGO at 18.7% (AUC 0.7611, 95% CI 0.6268-0.8954; sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 64.4%), consolidation at 3.88% (AUC 0.7438, 95% CI 0.6146-0.8729; sensitivity 100%, specificity 46.7%), and total at 23.5% (AUC 0.7931, 95% CI 0.673-0.9131; sensitivity 93.8%, specificity 57.8%)., Conclusion: QCT is a good diagnostic tool which facilitates decision-making regarding intensification of oxygen support and transfer to an intensive care unit in patients severely ill with COVID-19 pneumonia. QCT can make an independent and simple screening tool to assess the risk of death, regardless of clinical symptoms. Usefulness of QCT to predict the risk of death is higher than to assess the indications for respiratory support., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The use of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19 may lead to a milder course of infection and has been associated with improved outcomes. Determining optimal treatments in high risk populations is crucial, as is the case in those with hematological malignancies. We analyzed a cohort of 23 patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19 who had received plasma 48-72 h after the diagnosis of infection and compared it with a historical group of 22 patients who received other therapy. Overall survival in those who received convalescent plasma was significantly higher than in the historical group ( p = 0.03460). The plasma-treated group also showed a significantly milder course of infection ( p = 0.03807), characterized by less severe symptoms and faster recovery ( p = 0.00001). In conclusion, we have demonstrated that convalescent plasma is an effective treatment and its early administration leads to clinical improvement, increased viral clearance and longer overall survival in patients with hematological malignancies and COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is the first report to analyze the efficacy of convalescent plasma in a cohort of patients with hematological malignancies.

Background/Objectives: SARS-CoV-2 continually mutates, with five identified variants. Many neurological manifestations were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with differences between virus variants. The aim of this study is to assess the frequency and characteristics of neurological manifestations during COVID-19 in hospitalized patients over three waves in Poland with comparison and analysis correlation with the course of infection. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 600 consecutive adults with confirmed COVID-19, hospitalized during 3 waves (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron) in Poland. Demographic and clinical information and neurological manifestations were collected and compared across three periods. Results: The median age of the study group was 68, lower during the Delta wave. In the Omicron period, the disease severity at admission and inflammatory markers concentration were the lowest. Neurological manifestations were observed in 49%. The most common were altered mentation, headache, myalgia, mood disorder, ischemic stroke and encephalopathy. Smell and taste disturbances (STDs) were less frequent in the Omicron period. Neurological complications were predominant in the pre-Delta and Omicron periods. Ischemic stroke was observed more often in pre-Delta period. Altered mentation was related to higher severity at admission, worse lab test results, higher admission to ICU and mortality, while headache reduced mortality. Pre-existing dementia was related to higher mortality. Conclusions: Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are frequent, with a lower rate of STDs in the Omicron period and more often cerebrovascular diseases in the pre-Delta period. Headache improves the course of COVID-19, while altered mentation, stroke and neurological comorbidities increase severity and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiological data suggest that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection rate is higher in women than in men, but the death rate is lower, while women (>50 years) on menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) have a higher survival rate than those not on MHT. Classical oral estrogen enhances the synthesis of coagulation markers and may increase the risk of thromboembolic events that are common in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The favorable hemostatic profile of estetrol (E4) might be suitable for use in women who are receiving estrogen treatment and contract COVID-19. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study (NCT04801836) investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of E4 versus placebo in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19. Eligible postmenopausal women and men (aged ≥ 18 years old) were randomized to E4 15 mg or placebo, once daily for 21 days, in addition to the standard of care (SoC). The primary efficacy endpoint of improvement in COVID-19 (percentage of patients recovered at day 28) between the placebo and E4 arms was not met. E4 was well tolerated, with no safety signals or thromboembolic events, suggesting that postmenopausal women can safely continue E4-based therapy in cases of moderate COVID-19 managed with SoC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 receives a lot of attention due to its threat to global public health. Research is ongoing to find universal methods to assess the baseline health status of a patient to determine prognosis and management strategies. This study aims to assess the predictive potential of the EASIX (Endothelial Activation and Stress Index) and two of its modifications (mEASIX and sEASIX) in terms of the need for admission to the ICU (intensive care unit), the use of IMV (invasive mechanical ventilation) and death due to COVID-19. The medical data of 370 severely ill patients hospitalised in the COVID-19 departments of the Regional Specialist Hospital in Wroclaw (Poland), including the ICU, were analysed retrospectively. The mortality rate in the group studied was 65.7% (243 cases). In the case of all three indices, EASIX, mEASIX and sEASIX, there was a statistically significant correlation between the need for admission to the ICU (p = 0.026, p = 0.019, p = 0.001, respectively) and the risk of death (p < 0.001). In terms of the risk of death, the high values of the assessed indices (EASIX ≥ 2.36, mEASIX ≥ 704.03, sEASIX ≥ 3.81) were characterised by low sensitivity (≤40%), high specificity (approximately 90%) and low NPV (negative predictive value) (approximately 40%) with high PPV (positive predictive value) (approximately 80%). Due to the ease of implementation and the low cost of performing basic laboratory tests, the above-mentioned indices can be used as an additional, but not universal tool for the initial assessment of the health condition of patients admitted to the hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has sped up the implementation of telehealth solutions in medicine. A few symptom checkers dedicated for COVID-19 have been described, but it remains unclear whether and how they can affect patients and health systems. Objective: This paper demonstrates our experiences with the COVID-19 risk assessment (CRA) tool. We tried to determine who the user of the web-based COVID-19 triage app is and compare this group with patients in the infectious diseases ward's admission room to evaluate who could benefit from implementing the COVID-19 online symptom checker as a remote triage solution. Methods: We analyzed the answers of 248,862 people interacting with an online World Health Organization-based triage tool for assessing the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These users filled in an online questionnaire between April 7 and August 6, 2020. Based on the presented symptoms, risk factors, and demographics, the tool assessed whether the user's answers were suggestive of COVID-19 and recommended appropriate action. Subsequently, we compared the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of tool users with patients admitted to the Infectious Diseases Admission Room of J. Gromkowski Hospital in Wrocław. Results: The CRA tool tended to be used by asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic individuals (171,226 [68.80%] of all users). Most users were young (162,432 [65.27%] were below 40 years of age) and without comorbidities. Only 77,645 (31.20%) of the self-assessment app users were suspected of COVID-19 based on their reported symptoms. On the contrary, most admission room patients were symptomatic--symptoms such as fever, cough, and dyspnea were prevalent in both COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients. COVID-19-suspected patients in the CRA tool group presented similar COVID-19 symptoms as those who presented to the admission room. These were cough (25,062/40,007 [62.64%] in the CRA tool group vs 138/232 [59.48%] in the admission room group), fever (23,123/40,007 [57.80%] in the CRA tool group vs 146/232 [62.93%] in the admission room group), and shortness of breath (15,157/40,007 [37.89%] in the CRA tool group vs 87/232 [37.50%] in the admission room group). Conclusions: The comparison between the symptomatology of the users interacting with the CRA tool and those visiting the admission room revealed 2 major patient groups who could have benefited from the implementation of the self-assessment app in preclinical triage settings. The primary users of the CRA tool were young, oligosymptomatic individuals looking for screening for COVID-19 and reassurance early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The other group were users presenting the typical symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 at that time. The CRA tool recognized these individuals as potentially COVID-19 positive and directed them to the proper level of care. These use cases fulfil the idea of preclinical triage; however, the accuracy and influence on health care must be examined in the clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, the scenario of a self-contained disappearance of the epidemic (as it was in the case of SARS) is no longer taken into consideration, whilst the SARS-CoV-2 virus will stay with us forever, similarly to other coronaviruses or flu. It is quite likely that periodical exacerbations of the epidemics – their growth and decrease – depend on many factors, which comprise, among others, the approval of the restrictions by the society or the manner in the epidemiological supervision is carried out and whether it is consistent. We must be ready for about 18–24 months of a high activity of COVID-19 with periodic active hot spots in many world regions. This requires efficient health services and the access to efficacious medication. Without an effective prophylactic vaccine, it seems that we will not be able to prevent the spread of the pandemic [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SARS-CoV-2 shows a high affinity for the ACE-2 receptor, present on the epithelial cells of the upper and lower respiratory tract, within the intestine, kidneys, heart, testes, biliary epithelium, and—where it is particularly challenging—on vascular endothelial cells. Liver involvement is a rare manifestation of COVID-19. Material and Methods: We reviewed 450 patients admitted due to the fact of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) including 88 with liver injury. Based on medical history and previous laboratory test results, we excluded cases of underlying liver disease. The analysis involved a clinical course of COVID-19 in patients without underlying liver disease as well as the type and course of liver injury. Results: Signs and symptoms of liver injury were present in 20% of patients, mostly presenting as a mixed-type pattern of injury with less common cases of standalone hepatocellular (parenchymal) or cholestatic injury. The liver injury symptoms resolved at the end of inpatient treatment in 20% of cases. Sixteen patients died with no cases where liver injury would be deemed a cause of death. Conclusions: (1) Liver injury secondary to COVID-19 was mild, and in in 20%, the signs and symptoms of liver injury resolved by the end of hospitalization. (2) It seems that liver injury in patients with COVID-19 was not associated with a higher risk of mortality. (3) The underlying mechanism of liver injury as well as its sequelae are not fully known. Therefore, caution and further monitoring are advised, especially in patients whose liver function tests have not returned to normal values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is recommended as a first-line treatment in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. We assessed the effectiveness of HFNO and predictors of failure and death. The medical records of 200 consecutive adult patients treated with HFNO were analysed. Ninety-two patients (46%) were successfully cured, 52 (26%) required noninvasive ventilation, and 61 (30.5%) received intubation. Overall mortality was 40.5%. Risk factors of HFNO ineffectiveness were: SpO2 ≤ 90% with conventional oxygen therapy (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19–0.53, p < 0.001), SpO2 ≤ 74% without oxygen therapy (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27–0.71, p < 0.001), an age ≥ 60, comorbidities, biomarkers (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, creatinine, lactate dehydrogenase), duration of symptoms before admission to hospital ≤ 9 days, start of treatment with HFNO ≤ 4 days. The multivariate logistic regression models (age ≥ 60, comorbidities, C-reactive protein concentration and SpO2 with oxygen therapy) revealed a high predictive value of death and HFNO failure (AUC 0.851, sensitivity 0.780, specificity 0.802; AUC 0.800, sensitivity 0.776, specificity 0.739, respectively). HFNO is a safe method for treating acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, with effectiveness reaching nearly 50%. Low values of SpO2 without and during oxygen therapy seem to be good diagnostic tools for predicting death and HFNO failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19, as a disease involving the endothelium of multiple organs, is characterized by high mortality rates among hospitalized patients. Patients with hematological malignancies are particularly at risk of an unfavorable course of COVID-19. The endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) score has been used as a simple predictor of overall survival (OS) in specific groups of hematological cancer patients. EASIX, as a biomarker of endothelial dysfunction, might play a prognostic role in patients with COVID-19. Here, we performed a comprehensive retrospective analysis of the EASIX score in 523 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with or without coexisting hematological cancer. Hematological cancer COVID-19 patients had higher EASIX scores compared to the overall population with COVID-19. In hematological patients, EASIX was a strong predictor of the occurrence of sepsis during COVID-19. Our findings demonstrated EASIX as a strong predictor of intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, the occurrence of acute renal failure and the need for hemodialysis, both in hematological and non-hematological COVID-19 patients. Patients with a high EASIX score on COVID-19 diagnosis had significantly inferior OS compared to patients with low EASIX. We showed for the first time that EASIX might serve as a simple, universal prognostic tool of OS in both hematological and non-hematological COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized in the European Union have revealed high efficacy in preventing symptomatic infections. However, during vaccination campaigns, some vaccine recipients, including those partially and fully vaccinated, will experience severe COVID-19, requiring hospitalization. This may particularly concern patients with a diminished immune response to the vaccine, as well as non-responders. This work has retrospectively analyzed the 92 cases of patients who were hospitalized between 27 December 2020 and 31 May 2021 in four Polish healthcare units due to COVID-19, and who have previously received the COVID-19 vaccine (54.3% ≤ 14 days after the first dose, 26.1% > 14 days after the first dose, 7.6% ≤ 14 days after the second dose, and 12% > 14 days after the second dose). These patients represented a minute fraction (1.2%) of all the COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized during the same period in the same healthcare institutions. No significant differences in white blood count, absolute lymphocyte count nadir, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, procalcitonin, oxygen saturation, lung involvement, and fever frequency were found between the recipients of the first and second vaccine dose. A total of 15 deaths were noted (1.1% of all fatal COVID-19 cases in the considered period and healthcare units), including six in patients who received the second dose (five > 14 days after the second dose)—three of these subjects were using immunosuppressive medicines, and two were confirmed to be vaccine non-responders. The study reassures that severe COVID-19 and deaths are not common in vaccinated individuals, highlights that the clinical course in such patients may not reveal any distinctive features, and advocates for close monitoring of those at a higher risk of vaccine failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite direct viral effect, the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) includes an overproduction of cytokines including interleukin 6 (IL-6). Therefore, tocilizumab (TOC), a monoclonal antibody against IL-6 receptors, was considered as a possible therapeutic option. Patients were selected from the SARSTer database, containing 2332 individuals with COVID-19. Current study included 825 adult patients with moderate to severe course. Analysis was performed in 170 patients treated with TOC and 655 with an alternative medication. The end-points of treatment effectiveness were death rate, need for mechanical ventilation, and clinical improvement. Patients treated with TOC were balanced compared to non-TOC regarding gender, age, BMI, and prevalence of coexisting conditions. Significant effect of TOC on death was demonstrated in patients with baseline IL-6 > 100 pg/mL (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08–0.57). The best effectiveness of TOC was achieved in patients with a combination of baseline IL-6 > 100 pg/mL and either SpO2 ≤ 90% (HR: 0.07) or requiring oxygen supplementation (HR: 0.18). Tocilizumab administration in COVID-19 reduces mortality and speeds up clinical improvement in patients with a baseline concentration of IL-6 > 100 pg/mL, particularly if they need oxygen supplementation owing to the lower value of SpO2 ≤ 90%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 vaccinations are about to begin in various countries or are already ongoing. This is an unprecedented operation that is also met with a loud response from anti-vaccine communities—currently using all available channels to manipulate public opinion. At the same time, the strategy to educate on vaccinations, explain their mechanism of action, and build trust in science is subdued in different world parts. Such actions should go much beyond campaigns promoting the COVID-19 vaccines solely on the information provided by the health institutions and national authorities. In this paper, actions provided by independent expert groups needed to counteract the anti-vaccine propaganda and provide scientific-based information to the general public are offered. These actions encompass organizing groups continuously communicating science on COVID-19 vaccines to the general public; tracking and tackling emerging and circulating fake news; and equipping celebrities and politicians with scientific information to ensure the quality of messages they communicate, as well as public letters, and statements of support for vaccination by healthcare workers, recognized scientists, VIPs, and scientific societies; and no tolerance to false and manipulated claims on vaccination spread via traditional and social media as well as by health professionals, scientists, and academics. These activities should be promptly implemented worldwide, regardless of the current status and availability of the COVID-19 vaccine in a particular region. If we are about to control the pandemic for the sake of public benefit, it is high time to collectively speak out as academic and medical societies with support from decision-makers. Otherwise, the battle will be lost to those who stand against scientific evidence while offering no feasible solution to the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Higher mortality rate in COVID-19 patients with haematologic diseases. • Haematologic patients with COVID-19 have 50 % less chance of survival. • Probability of death was higher in patients older than 40 yrs of age with AML/MDS. Here we report nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 among patients in a haematological unit. To our knowledge this is the first report from Central Europe comparing morbidity and mortality in infected and non-infected patients after exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The outbreak involved 39 individuals: 19 patients and 20 health care workers. The SARS-CoV-2 test by nasopharyngeal swabs was performed by real-time RT-PCR. Exposed patients were divided into two groups: quarantine patients with and without COVID-19. All patients were prospectively examined at the following time points: 0, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days after confirmation or exclusion of SARS-CoV-2. Infection was confirmed in a total of 5/20 health care workers and 10/19 patients. Among the patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mortality rate was 36.8 %. The probability of death in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 increased 8-fold (p = 0.03). Bacterial, fungal, and viral co-infection significantly decreased survival in these patients (p < 0.05). Additionally, the probability of death was much higher in patients older than 40 years of age (p = 0.032). This study showed significantly higher mortality rate in COVID-19 patients with haematologic diseases compared to the non-infected patient group. Haematologic patients with COVID-19 have 50 % less chance of survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]