Introduction: The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic has led to devastating repercussions on health care systems worldwide. This viral infection has a broad clinical spectrum (ranging from influenza‐like disease, viral pneumonia, and hypoxemia to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring prolonged intensive care unit stays). The prognostic impact of measuring viral load on nasopharyngeal swab specimens (by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction [RT‐PCR]) is yet to be elucidated.Methods: Between March 3 and April 5, 2020, we conducted a retrospective study on a cohort of COVID‐19 patients (mild or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED) and had at least one positive nasopharyngeal swab during their hospital stay. We led our study at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg in the Greater East region of France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe.Results: We have collected samples from a cohort of 287 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID‐19 who were included in our study. Nearly half of them (50.5%) presented a mild form of the disease, while the other half (49.5%) presented a severe form, requiring mechanical ventilation. Median (interquartile range) viral load on the initial upper respiratory swab at admission was 4.76 (3.29–6.06) log₁₀ copies/reaction. When comparing survivors and nonsurvivors, this viral load measurement did not differ according to subgroups (p = 0.332). Additionally, we have found that respiratory viral load measurement was predictive of neither in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.637) nor disease severity (AOR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.06, p = 0.167).Conclusion: Respiratory viral load measurement on the first nasopharyngeal swab (by RT‐PCR) during initial ED management is neither a predictor of severity nor a predictor of mortality in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Host response to this viral infection along with the extent of preexisting comorbidities might be more foretelling of disease severity than the virus itself.

Patients aged over 90 are being admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with increasing frequency. The appropriateness of such decisions still remains controversial due to questionable outcome, limited resources and costs. Our objective was to determine the clinical characteristics and outcome in elderly patients (≥ 90 years) admitted in a medical ICU, with an additional focus on medico-economic implications. We reviewed the charts of all patients (≥ 90 years) admitted to our ICU. We compared them with all other ICU patients (< 90 years), sought to identify ICU mortality predictors and also performed a long-term survival follow-up. In the study group of 317 stays: median age was 92 years (IQR: 91–94 years); most patients were female (71.3%.). Acute respiratory failure (52.4%) was the main admission diagnosis; mean SAPS II was 55.6±21.3; half the stays (49.2%) required mechanical ventilation (duration: 7.2±8.8 days); withholding and withdrawing decisions were made for 33.4% of all stays. ICU and hospital mortality rates were 35.7% and 42.6% respectively. Mechanical ventilation (OR = 4.83, CI95%: 1.59–15.82) was an independent predictor of ICU mortality whereas age was not (OR = 0.88, CI95%: 0.72–1.08). Social security reimbursement was significantly lower in the study group compared with all other ICU stays, both per stay (13,160 vs 22,092 Euros, p< 0.01) and per day of stay (p = 0.03). Among critically ill elderly patients (≥ 90 years), chronological age was not an independent factor of ICU mortality. ICU care-related costs in this population should not be considered as a limiting factor for ICU admission.

Septic shock-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation is responsible for increased occurrence of multiple organ dysfunction and mortality. Immunothrombosis-induced coagulopathy may contribute to hypercoagulability. We aimed at determining whether recombinant human thrombomodulin (rhTM) could control exaggerated immunothrombosis by studying procoagulant responses, fibrinolysis activity borne by microvesicles (MVs) and NETosis in septic shock. In a septic shock model after a cecal ligation and puncture-induced peritonitis (H0), rats were treated with rhTM or a placebo at H18, resuscitated and monitored during 4 h. At H22, blood was sampled to perform coagulation tests, to characterize MVs and to detect neutrophils extracellular traps (NETs). Lungs were stained with hematoxylin–eosin for inflammatory injury assessment. Coagulopathy was attenuated in rhTM-treated septic rats compared to placebo-treated rats, as attested by a significant decrease in procoagulant annexin A5+-MVs and plasma procoagulant activity of phospholipids and by a significant increase in antithrombin levels (84 ± 8 vs. 64 ± 6%, p < 0.05), platelet count (582 ± 157 vs. 319 ± 91 × 109/L, p < 0.05) and fibrinolysis activity borne by MVs (2.9 ± 0.26 vs. 0.48 ± 0.29 U/mL urokinase, p < 0.05). Lung histological injury score showed significantly less leukocyte infiltration. Decreased procoagulant activity and lung injury were concomitant with decreased leukocyte activation as attested by plasma leukocyte-derived MVs and NETosis reduction after rhTM treatment (neutrophil elastase/DNA: 93 ± 33 vs. 227 ± 48 and citrullinated histones H3/DNA: 96 ± 16 vs. 242 ± 180, mOD for 109 neutrophils/L, p < 0.05). Thrombomodulin limits procoagulant responses and NETosis and at least partly restores hemostasis control during immunothrombosis. Neutrophils might thus stand as a promising therapeutic target in septic shock-induced coagulopathy.

(1) Introduction: According to recent studies, the ratio of C-reactive-protein to lymphocyte is more sensitive and specific than other biomarkers associated to systemic inflammatory processes. This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of CLR on COVID-19 severity and mortality at emergency department (ED) admission. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we carried out a multicenter and retrospective study in six major hospitals of northeast France. The cohort was composed of patients hospitalized for a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. (3) Results: A total of 1,035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were the CLR (OR: 1.001, CI 95%: (1.000–1.002), p = 0.012), and the lymphocyte level (OR: 1.951, CI 95%: (1.024–3.717), p = 0.042). In multivariate analysis, the only biochemical factor significantly associated with mortality was lymphocyte rate (OR: 2.308, CI 95%: (1.286–4.141), p = 0.005). The best threshold of CLR to predict the severity of infection was 78.3 (sensitivity 79%; specificity 47%), and to predict mortality, was 159.5 (sensitivity 48%; specificity 70%). (4) Conclusion: The CLR at admission to the ED could be a helpful prognostic biomarker in the early screening and prediction of the severity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We have previously surveyed a panel of 508 physicians from around the world about which biomarkers would be relevant if obtained in a very short time frame, corresponding to emergency situations (life-threatening or not). The biomarkers that emerged from this study were markers of cardiovascular disease: troponin, D-dimers, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Cardiovascular disease is a group of disorders affecting the heart and blood vessels. At the intersection of medicine, basic research and engineering, biosensors that address the need for rapid biological analysis could find a place of choice in the hospital or primary care ecosystem. Rapid, reliable, and inexpensive analysis with a multi-marker approach, including machine learning analysis for patient risk analysis, could meet the demand of medical teams. The objective of this opinion review, proposed by a multidisciplinary team of experts (physicians, biologists, market access experts, and engineers), is to present cases where a rapid biological response is indeed valuable, to provide a short overview of current biosensor technologies for cardiac biomarkers designed for a short result time, and to discuss existing market access issues.