Search

Background: The clinical frailty scale (CFS) was used as a triage tool for medical decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CFS has been posed as a suitable risk marker for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. We evaluated whether the CFS is associated with mortality 24 months after hospitalisation for COVID-19., Methods: The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an international, multicentre, observational cohort study, including adult patients hospitalised for COVID-19 between March 2020-July 2020. Patients' characteristics, prescribed medication, clinical characteristics, and CFS were collected at admission, survival data were collected 24 months after hospitalisation. Multivariable cox proportional hazard models stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years), and adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs, and types of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities) were used to study the association between the CFS and 24-month mortality after hospitalisation., Results: In this study, 1238 fit (CFS 1-3), 478 mildly frail (CFS 4-5), and 235 frail (CFS 6-9) patients were included for baseline analysis (median age 68 years (IQR 58-78); 58.5 % male). Frailty was associated with an increased risk of 24-month mortality after hospitalisation in older patients (HR 1.91, 95 % CI [1.17-3.12]), in younger adults a trend was seen (HR 3.13, 95 % CI [0.86-11.36])., Conclusion: The results suggest that the CFS is an indicator for mortality 24 months after hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Hugo van der Kuy reports financial support was provided by 10.13039/501100001826Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Hugo van der Kuy reports financial support was provided by LOEY Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use., Methods: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively., Results: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies., Conclusion: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH)., Design: Prospective observational cohort study., Methods: PWH aged ≥45 years received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those <45 years Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1 : 2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses and cytokine responses up to 180 days post-vaccination., Results: Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 ( N  = 35) or BNT162b2 ( N  = 5) following mRNA-based ( N  = 29) or vector-based ( N  = 11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs. 26% of non-PWH) and median 57 years [interquartile range (IQR) 53-59]. Their median CD4 + T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511-965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was <50 copies/ml in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28 days post-vaccination was comparable between PWH [4.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24-6.19] and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42-4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180 days, and T-cell responses up to 90 days post-vaccination. Interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28 days post-vaccination in PWH., Conclusion: A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90 days in PWH compared to non-PWH., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Bivalent mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines encoding the ancestral and omicron spike (S) protein were developed as a countermeasure against antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to assess the (variant-specific) immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA-based bivalent omicron (BA.1) vaccines in individuals who were primed with adenovirus-based or mRNA-based vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein., Methods: We analysed results of the direct boost group of the SWITCH ON study, an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Health-care workers from four academic hospitals in the Netherlands aged 18-65 years who had completed a primary COVID-19 vaccination regimen and received one booster of an mRNA-based vaccine, given no later than 3 months previously, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using computer software in block sizes of 16 and 24 to receive an omicron BA.1 bivalent booster straight away (direct boost group) or a bivalent omicron BA.5 booster, postponed for 90 days (postponed boost group), stratified by priming regimen. The BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost was given to participants younger than 45 years, and the mRNA-1273.214 boost was given to participants 45 years or older, as per Dutch guidelines. The direct boost group, whose results are presented here, were divided into four subgroups for analysis: (1) Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 (BioNTech-Pfizer) boost (Ad/P), (2) mRNA-based prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost (mRNA/P), (3) Ad26.COV2.S prime and mRNA-1273.214 (Moderna) boost (Ad/M), and (4) mRNA-based prime and mRNA-1273.214 boost (mRNA/M). The primary outcome was fold change in S protein S1 subunit-specific IgG antibodies before and 28 days after booster vaccination. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all participants except those who withdrew, had a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, or had a missing blood sample at day 0 or day 28. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05471440., Findings: Between Sept 2 and Oct 4, 2022, 219 (50%) of 434 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the direct boost group; 187 participants were included in the primary analyses; exclusions were mainly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection between days 0 and 28. From the 187 included participants, 138 (74%) were female and 49 (26%) were male. 42 (22%) of 187 participants received Ad/P and 44 (24%) mRNA/P (those aged <45 years), and 45 (24%) had received Ad/M and 56 (30%) mRNA/M (those aged ≥45 years). S1-specific binding antibody concentrations increased 7 days after bivalent booster vaccination and remained stable over 28 days in all four subgroups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] between day 0 and day 28 was 1·15 [95% CI 1·12-1·19] for the Ad/P group, 1·17 [1·14-1·20] for the mRNA/P group, 1·20 [1·17-1·23] for the Ad/M group, and 1·16 [1·13-1·19] for the mRNA/M group). We observed no significant difference in the GMR between the Ad/P and mRNA/P groups (p=0·51). The GMR appeared to be higher in the Ad/M group than in the mRNA/M group, but was not significant (p=0·073). Most side-effects were mild to moderate in severity and resolved within 48 h in most individuals., Interpretation: Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273.214 or BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 in adult healthcare workers resulted in a rapid recall of humoral and cellular immune responses independent of the priming regimen. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity at the population level, and simultaneously antigenic drift at the virus level, remains crucial to assess the necessity and timing of COVID-19 variant-specific booster vaccinations., Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: A high body mass index (BMI) is associated with an unfavorable disease course in COVID-19, but not among those who require admission to the ICU. This has not been examined across different age groups. We examined whether age modifies the association between BMI and mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients., Design: An observational cohort study., Setting: A nationwide registry analysis of critically ill patients with COVID-19 registered in the National Intensive Care Evaluation registry., Patients: We included 15,701 critically ill patients with COVID-19 (10,768 males [68.6%] with median [interquartile range] age 64 yr [55-71 yr]), of whom 1,402 (8.9%) patients were less than 45 years., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: In the total sample and after adjustment for age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, mechanical ventilation, and use of vasoactive drugs, we found that a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 does not affect hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj ] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06; p = 0.62). For patients less than 45 years old, but not for those greater than or equal to 45 years old, a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 was associated with a lower hospital mortality (OR adj = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96; p = 0.03)., Conclusions: A higher BMI may be favorably associated with a lower mortality among those less than 45 years old. This is in line with the so-called "obesity paradox" that was established for other groups of critically ill patients in broad age ranges. Further research is needed to understand this favorable association in young critically ill patients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: Dr. Rietdijk, Sablerolles, and van der Kuy received funding for conducting COVID-19 research from the Leading Online Entrepreneur of the Year (LOEY) foundation. Drs. Termorshuizen’s and de Keizer’s institutions received funding from the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) Foundation. Dr. Termorshuizen received funding from the Mental Health Care Institute Rivierduinen. Dr. de Keizer’s institution received funding from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) COVID-19 Programme; she disclosed that she is a NICE board member. Although, the LOEY foundation and ZonMw provided a grant to conduct COVID-19 research, they were not involved in the design, execution, and/or publication of this study. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised questions regarding the durability of immune responses after homologous or heterologous boosters after Ad26.COV2.S-priming. We found that SARS-CoV-2-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T cells are detectable 5 months after boosting, although waning of antibodies and limited cross-reactivity with Omicron BA.1 was observed., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. L. G. V. reports research grants from U Needle, MyLife Technologies, and Bavarian Nordic, all outside of the submitted work; consulting fees from Emergent for expert meeting travel vaccines; participation on a scientific advisory board for Geosentinel; and serving as committee member for the National Board Guideline Development Travel Medicine. A. G. reports participation on a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) IDSCOVA (Establishing the tolerability, safety and immunogenicity of intradermal delivery of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in healthy adults) study on intradermal COVID vaccinations and serving as member of national advisory board on coronavirus disease vaccinations for immunocompromised patients. A. L. W. H. reports support for the present research from the Dutch Research Council (ZonMw) to their organization. D. F. P. reports participation on the DSMB of the COBRA-KAI trial (COVID-19 vaccination in patients with reduced B-cell and T-cell immunity: response after vaccination in a kaleidoscopic group of hematologic patients: what's the impact?). V. A. S. H. D. reports research funding outside of the submitted work from ZonMw and EU Horizon 2020, consulting fees for an advisory board meeting from GSK, and honoraria for lectures from Pharming, Takeda. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants led to the recommendation of booster vaccinations after Ad26.COV2.S priming. It was previously shown that heterologous booster vaccination induces high antibody levels, but how heterologous boosters affect other functional aspects of the immune response remained unknown. Here, we performed immunological profiling of Ad26.COV2.S-primed individuals before and after homologous or heterologous (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) booster. Booster vaccinations increased functional antibodies targeting ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants. Especially heterologous booster vaccinations induced high levels of functional antibodies. In contrast, T-cell responses were similar in magnitude following homologous or heterologous booster vaccination and retained cross-reactivity towards variants. Booster vaccination led to a minimal expansion of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell clones and no increase in the breadth of the T-cell repertoire. In conclusion, we show that Ad26.COV2.S priming vaccination provided a solid immunological base for heterologous boosting, increasing humoral and cellular responses targeting emerging variants of concern., Competing Interests: A.S. is a consultant for Gritstone Bio, Flow Pharma, ImmunoScape, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Avalia, Fortress, Repertoire, Gilead, Gerson Lehrman Group, RiverVest, MedaCorp, and Guggenheim. LJI has filed for patent protection for various aspects of T-cell epitope and vaccine design work. The other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has contributed greatly to providing protection against severe disease, thereby reducing hospital admissions and deaths. Several studies have reported reduction in vaccine effectiveness over time against the Omicron sub-lineages. However, the willingness to receive regular booster doses in the general population is declining. To determine the need for repeated booster vaccinations in healthy individuals and to aid policymakers in future public health interventions for COVID-19, we aim to gain insight into the immunogenicity of the additional bivalent booster vaccination in a representative sample of the healthy Dutch population. The SWITCH ON study was initiated to investigate three main topics: i) immunogenicity of bivalent vaccines after priming with adenovirus- or mRNA-based vaccines, ii) immunological recall responses and reactivity with relevant variants after booster vaccination, and iii) the necessity of booster vaccinations for the healthy population in the future., Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT05471440., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Tan, Sablerolles, Rietdijk, Goorhuis, Postma, Visser, Bogers, Geers, Zaeck, Koopmans, Dalm, Kootstra, Huckriede, van Baarle, Lafeber, GeurtsvanKessel, de Vries and van der Kuy.)

The severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is spreading rapidly, even in vaccinated individuals, raising concerns about immune escape. Here, we studied neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses targeting SARS-CoV-2 D614G [wild type (WT)] and the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern in a cohort of 60 health care workers after immunization with ChAdOx-1 S, Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2. High binding antibody levels against WT SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) were detected 28 days after vaccination with both mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2), which substantially decreased after 6 months. In contrast, antibody levels were lower after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination but did not wane. Neutralization assays showed consistent cross-neutralization of the Beta and Delta variants, but neutralization of Omicron was significantly lower or absent. BNT162b2 booster vaccination after either two mRNA-1273 immunizations or Ad26.COV2 priming partially restored neutralization of the Omicron variant, but responses were still up to 17-fold decreased compared with WT. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected up to 6 months after all vaccination regimens, with more consistent detection of specific CD4 + than CD8 + T cells. No significant differences were detected between WT- and variant-specific CD4 + or CD8 + T cell responses, including Omicron, indicating minimal escape at the T cell level. This study shows that vaccinated individuals retain T cell immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, potentially balancing the lack of neutralizing antibodies in preventing or limiting severe COVID-19. Booster vaccinations are needed to further restore Omicron cross-neutralization by antibodies.

Background: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, which was approved as a single-shot immunization regimen, has been shown to be effective against severe coronavirus disease 2019. However, this vaccine induces lower severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S)-specific antibody levels than those induced by messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines. The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a homologous or heterologous booster in persons who have received an Ad26.COV2.S priming dose are unclear., Methods: In this single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, we assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity 28 days after a homologous or heterologous booster vaccination. The participants were assigned to receive no booster, an Ad26.COV2.S booster, an mRNA-1273 booster, or a BNT162b2 booster. The primary end point was the level of S-specific binding antibodies, and the secondary end points were the levels of neutralizing antibodies, S-specific T-cell responses, and reactogenicity. A post hoc analysis was performed to compare mRNA-1273 boosting with BNT162b2 boosting., Results: Homologous or heterologous booster vaccination resulted in higher levels of S-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses than a single Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. The increase in binding antibodies was significantly larger with heterologous regimens that included mRNA-based vaccines than with the homologous booster. The mRNA-1273 booster was most immunogenic and was associated with higher reactogenicity than the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S boosters. Local and systemic reactions were generally mild to moderate in the first 2 days after booster administration., Conclusions: The Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA boosters had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. The strongest responses occurred after boosting with mRNA-based vaccines. Boosting with any available vaccine was better than not boosting. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw; SWITCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04927936.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19, conflicting theories have circulated on the influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) on incidence and clinical course of COVID-19, but data are scarce. The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an observational, multinational study that focused on the clinical course of COVID-19 (i.e. hospital mortality and intensive care unit [ICU] admission), and included COVID-19 patients who were registered at the emergency department or admitted to clinical wards of 63 participating hospitals. Pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists or treating physicians collected data on medication prescribed prior to admission. The association between the medication and composite clinical endpoint, including mortality and ICU admission, was analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders. A total of 4870 patients were enrolled. ACEi were used by 847 (17.4%) patients and ARB by 761 (15.6%) patients. No significant association was seen with ACEi and the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.12), mortality (OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.27) or ICU admission (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.78 to 1.19) after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, no association was observed between ARB and the composite endpoint (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.30), mortality (OR 1.12; OR 0.90 to 1.39) or ICU admission (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.98 to 1.49). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a harmful or beneficial effect of ACEi or ARB use prior to hospital admission on ICU admission or hospital mortality., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe., Methods: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS 1-3 ), mildly frail (CFS 4-5 ), or frail (CFS 6-9 ). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities)., Findings: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018)., Interpretation: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution., Funding: LOEY Foundation., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.)

Various theories about drugs such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in relation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 are circulating in both mainstream media and medical literature. These are based on the fact that ACE2 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell invasion via binding of a viral spike protein to ACE2. However, the effect of ACE inhibitors, ARBs and other drugs on ACE2 is unclear and all theories are based on conflicting evidence mainly from animal studies. Therefore, clinical evidence is urgently needed. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs on clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19. Patients will be included from several hospitals in Europe. Data will be collected in a user-friendly database (Digitalis) on an external server. Analyses will be adjusted for sex, age and presence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes. These results will enable more rational choices for randomised controlled trials for preventive and therapeutic strategies in COVID-19., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)