Search

Background The burden and duration of persistent symptoms after nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess postinfection symptom trajectories in home-isolated COVID-19 cases compared with age- and time- matched seronegative controls, and investigate immunological correlates of long COVID. Methods A prospective case-control study included home-isolated COVID-19 cases between February 28 and April 4, 2020, and followed for 12 (n = 233) to 18 (n = 149) months, and 189 age-matched severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-naive controls. We collected clinical data at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months postinfection, and blood samples at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months for analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular responses. Results Overall, 46% (108/233) had persisting symptoms 12 months after COVID-19. Compared with controls, adult cases had a high risk of fatigue (27% excess risk, sex, and comorbidity adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.27–10.5), memory problems (21% excess risk; aOR 7.42; CI, 3.51–15.67), concentration problems (20% excess risk; aOR 8.88; 95% CI, 3.88–20.35), and dyspnea (10% excess risk; aOR 2.66; 95% CI, 1.22–5.79). The prevalence of memory problems increased overall from 6 to 18 months (excess risk 11.5%; 95% CI, 1.5–21.5; P =.024) and among women (excess risk 18.7%; 95% CI, 4.4–32.9; P =.010). Longitudinal spike immunoglobulin G was significantly associated with dyspnea at 12 months. The spike-specific clonal CD4+ T-cell receptor β depth was significantly associated with both dyspnea and number of symptoms at 12 months. Conclusions This study documents a high burden of persisting symptoms after mild COVID-19 and suggests that infection induced SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses may influence long-term symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Acute undifferentiated fever (AUF) ranges from self-limiting illness to life-threatening infections, such as sepsis, malaria, dengue, leptospirosis and rickettsioses. Similar clinical presentation challenges the clinical management. This study describes risk factors for death in patients hospitalized with AUF in India. Methods Patients aged ≥5 y admitted with fever for 2–14 d without localizing signs were included in a prospective observational study at seven hospitals in India during 2011–2012. Predictors identified by univariate analysis were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression for survival analysis. Results Mortality was 2.4% (37/1521) and 46.9% (15/32) died within 2 d. History of heart disease (p=0.013), steroid use (p=0.011), altered consciousness (p<0.0001), bleeding (p<0.0001), oliguria (p=0.020) and breathlessness (p=0.015) were predictors of death, as were reduced Glasgow coma score (p=0.005), low urinary output (p=0.004), abnormal breathing (p=0.006), abdominal tenderness (p=0.023), leucocytosis (p<0.0001) and thrombocytopenia (p=0.001) at admission. Etiology was identified in 48.6% (18/37) of fatal cases. Conclusions Bleeding, cerebral dysfunction, respiratory failure and oliguria at admission, suggestive of severe organ failure secondary to systemic infection, were predictors of death. Almost half of the patients who died, died shortly after admission, which, together with organ failure, suggests that delay in hospitalization and, consequently, delayed treatment, contribute to death from AUF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative data on COVID-19 among health care workers (HCWs) in different health care settings are scarce. This study investigated the rates of previous COVID-19 among HCWs in nursing homes, hospitals and a municipal emergency room (ER). Methods: We prospectively included 747 HCWs: 313 from nursing homes, 394 from hospitals and 40 from the ER. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was based on serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity and self-reported RT-PCR positivity prior to inclusion. Information regarding age, sex and exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection was collected. Results: A total of 4% (11/313) of nursing home HCWs and 6% (28/434) of HCWs in hospitals/the ER tested positive by serology and/or RT-PCR (p = 0.095). Fewer HCWs in nursing homes had occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 compared to those in hospitals/the ER (16% vs. 48%, p < 0, 001), but nursing homes had a higher proportion of HCWs with occupational exposure using partial/no PPE (56% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). Nevertheless, no significant differences in the risk for COVID-19 were found in relation to the rate of occupational exposure (p = 0.755) or use of inadequate PPE (p = 0.631). Conclusions: Despite a small sample size, the risk for COVID-19 among HCWs did not appear to be related to the type of health care facility, rates of occupational exposure or use of PPE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Influenza is difficult to distinguish clinically from other acute respiratory infections. Rapid laboratory diagnosis can help initiate early effective antiviral treatment and isolation. Implementing a novel point-of-care test (POCT) for influenza in the emergency department (ED) could improve treatment and isolation strategies and reduce the length of stay (LOS).Methods: In a prospective, controlled observational cohort study, we enrolled patients admitted due to acute respiratory illness to 2 public hospitals in Bergen, Norway, one using a rapid POCT for influenza (n = 400), the other (n = 167) using conventional rapid laboratory-based assay.Results: Prevalence of influenza was similar in the 2 hospitals (154/400, 38% vs 38%, 63/167; P = .863). Most patients in both hospitals received antiviral (83% vs 81%; P = .703) and antibiotic treatment (72% vs 62%; P = .149). Isolation was more often initiated in ED in the hospital using POCT (91% vs 80%; P = .025). Diagnosis by POCT was associated with shorter hospital stay; old age, diabetes, cancer, and use of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum antibiotics, were associated with prolonged stay.Conclusions: POCT implementation in ED resulted in improved targeted isolation and shorter LOS. Regardless of POCT use, most influenza patients received antivirals (>80%) and antibiotics (>69%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 patients are extensively treated with antibiotics despite few bacterial complications. We aimed to study antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to influenza patients in two consecutive years. Furthermore, we investigated changes in antibiotic use from the first to second pandemic wave. This prospective study included both patients from two referral hospitals in Bergen, Norway, admitted with influenza (n = 215) during the 2018/2019 epidemic and with COVID-19 (n = 82) during spring/summer 2020, and national data on registered Norwegian COVID-19 hospital admissions from March 2020 to January 2021 (n = 2300). Patient characteristics were compared, and logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for antibiotic use. National and local COVID-19 patients received significantly less antibiotics (53% and 49%) than influenza patients (69%, p <.001). Early antibiotics contributed to >90% of antibiotic prescriptions in the two local hospitals, and >70% of prescriptions nationally. When adjusted for age, comorbidities, symptom duration, chest X-ray infiltrates and oxygen treatment, local COVID-19 patients still had significantly lower odds of antibiotic prescription than influenza patients (aOR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09–0.50). At the national level, we observed a significant reduction in antibiotic prescription rates in the second pandemic wave compared to the first (aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.29–0.43). Fewer COVID-19 patients received antibiotics compared to influenza patients admitted to the two local hospitals one year earlier. The antibiotic prescription rate was lower during the second pandemic wave, possibly due to increased clinical experience and published evidence refuting the efficacy of antibiotics in treating COVID-19 pneumonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many countries experienced infection in health care workers (HCW) due to overburdened health care systems. Whether infected HCW acquire protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear.Methods: In a Norwegian prospective cohort study, we enrolled 607 HCW before and after the first COVID-19 wave. Exposure history, COVID-19-like symptoms, and serum samples were collected. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were characterized by spike-protein IgG/IgM/IgA enzyme-linked immunosorbent and live-virus neutralization assays.Results: Spike-specific IgG/IgM/IgA antibodies increased after the first wave in HCW with, but not in HCW without, COVID-19 patient exposure. Thirty-two HCW (5.3%) had spike-specific antibodies (11 seroconverted with ≥4-fold increase, 21 were seropositive at baseline). Neutralizing antibodies were found in 11 HCW that seroconverted, of whom 4 (36.4%) were asymptomatic. Ninety-seven HCW were tested by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during follow-up; 8 were positive (7 seroconverted, 1 had undetectable antibodies).Conclusions: We found increases in SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in infected HCW, especially after COVID-19 patient exposure. Our data show a low number of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive HCW in a low-prevalence setting; however, the proportion of seropositivity was higher than RT-PCR positivity, highlighting the importance of antibody testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]