Background: Self-reported health problems following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are common and often include relatively non-specific complaints such as fatigue, exertional dyspnoea, concentration or memory disturbance and sleep problems. The long-term prognosis of such post-acute sequelae of COVID-19/post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) is unknown, and data finding and correlating organ dysfunction and pathology with self-reported symptoms in patients with non-recovery from PCS is scarce. We wanted to describe clinical characteristics and diagnostic findings among patients with PCS persisting for >1 year and assessed risk factors for PCS persistence versus improvement. Methods and findings: This nested population-based case-control study included subjects with PCS aged 18–65 years with (n = 982) and age- and sex-matched control subjects without PCS (n = 576) according to an earlier population-based questionnaire study (6–12 months after acute infection, phase 1) consenting to provide follow-up information and to undergo comprehensive outpatient assessment, including neurocognitive, cardiopulmonary exercise, and laboratory testing in four university health centres in southwestern Germany (phase 2, another 8.5 months [median, range 3–14 months] after phase 1). The mean age of the participants was 48 years, and 65% were female. At phase 2, 67.6% of the patients with PCS at phase 1 developed persistent PCS, whereas 78.5% of the recovered participants remained free of health problems related to PCS. Improvement among patients with earlier PCS was associated with mild acute index infection, previous full-time employment, educational status, and no specialist consultation and not attending a rehabilitation programme. The development of new symptoms related to PCS among participants initially recovered was associated with an intercurrent secondary SARS-CoV-2 infection and educational status. Patients with persistent PCS were less frequently never smokers (61.2% versus 75.7%), more often obese (30.2% versus 12.4%) with higher mean values for body mass index (BMI) and body fat, and had lower educational status (university entrance qualification 38.7% versus 61.5%) than participants with continued recovery. Fatigue/exhaustion, neurocognitive disturbance, chest symptoms/breathlessness and anxiety/depression/sleep problems remained the predominant symptom clusters. Exercise intolerance with post-exertional malaise (PEM) for >14 h and symptoms compatible with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome were reported by 35.6% and 11.6% of participants with persistent PCS patients, respectively. In analyses adjusted for sex-age class combinations, study centre and university entrance qualification, significant differences between participants with persistent PCS versus those with continued recovery were observed for performance in three different neurocognitive tests, scores for perceived stress, subjective cognitive disturbances, dysautonomia, depression and anxiety, sleep quality, fatigue and quality of life. In persistent PCS, handgrip strength (40.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) [39.4, 41.1]] versus 42.5 [95% CI [41.5, 43.6]] kg), maximal oxygen consumption (27.9 [95% CI [27.3, 28.4]] versus 31.0 [95% CI [30.3, 31.6]] ml/min/kg body weight) and ventilatory efficiency (minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope, 28.8 [95% CI [28.3, 29.2]] versus 27.1 [95% CI [26.6, 27.7]]) were significantly reduced relative to the control group of participants with continued recovery after adjustment for sex-age class combinations, study centre, education, BMI, smoking status and use of beta blocking agents. There were no differences in measures of systolic and diastolic cardiac function at rest, in the level of N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide blood levels or other laboratory measurements (including complement activity, markers of Epstein–Barr virus [EBV] reactivation, inflammatory and coagulation markers, serum levels of cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate). Screening for viral persistence (PCR in stool samples and SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen levels in plasma) in a subgroup of the patients with persistent PCS was negative. Sensitivity analyses (pre-existing illness/comorbidity, obesity, medical care of the index acute infection) revealed similar findings. Patients with persistent PCS and PEM reported more pain symptoms and had worse results in almost all tests. A limitation was that we had no objective information on exercise capacity and cognition before acute infection. In addition, we did not include patients unable to attend the outpatient clinic for whatever reason including severe illness, immobility or social deprivation or exclusion. Conclusions: In this study, we observed that the majority of working age patients with PCS did not recover in the second year of their illness. Patterns of reported symptoms remained essentially similar, non-specific and dominated by fatigue, exercise intolerance and cognitive complaints. Despite objective signs of cognitive deficits and reduced exercise capacity, there was no major pathology in laboratory investigations, and our findings do not support viral persistence, EBV reactivation, adrenal insufficiency or increased complement turnover as pathophysiologically relevant for persistent PCS. A history of PEM was associated with more severe symptoms and more objective signs of disease and might help stratify cases for disease severity.

Thromboembolic events are frequently reported in patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The exact mechanisms of COVID-19-associated hypercoagulopathy, however, remain elusive. Recently, we observed that platelets (PLTs) from patients with severe COVID-19 infection express high levels of procoagulant markers, which were found to be associated with increased risk for thrombosis. In the current study, we investigated the time course as well as the mechanisms leading to procoagulant PLTs in COVID-19. Our study demonstrates the presence of PLT-reactive IgG antibodies that induce marked changes in PLTs in terms of increased inner-mitochondrial transmembrane potential (Δψ) depolarization, phosphatidylserine (PS) externalization, and P-selectin expression. The IgG-induced procoagulant PLTs and increased thrombus formation were mediated by ligation of PLT Fc-γ RIIA (FcγRIIA). In addition, contents of calcium and cyclic-adenosine-monophosphate (cAMP) in PLTs were identified to play a central role in antibody-induced procoagulant PLT formation. Most importantly, antibody-induced procoagulant events, as well as increased thrombus formation in severe COVID-19, were inhibited by Iloprost, a clinically approved therapeutic agent that increases the intracellular cAMP levels in PLTs. Our data indicate that upregulation of cAMP could be a potential therapeutic target to prevent antibody-mediated coagulopathy in COVID-19 disease.

As global vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 proceed, there is particular interest in the longevity of immune protection, especially with regard to increasingly infectious virus variants. Neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 are promising correlates of protective immunity and have been successfully used for prevention and therapy. As SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) are known to affect binding to the ACE2 receptor and by extension neutralizing activity, we developed a bead-based multiplex ACE2-RBD inhibition assay (RBDCoV-ACE2) as a highly scalable, time-, cost-, and material-saving alternative to infectious live-virus neutralization tests. By mimicking the interaction between ACE2 and the RBD, this serological multiplex assay allows the simultaneous analysis of ACE2 binding inhibition to the RBDs of all SARS-CoV-2 VOCs and variants of interest (VOIs) in a single well. Following validation against a classical virus neutralization test and comparison of performance against a commercially available assay, we analyzed 266 serum samples from 168 COVID-19 patients of varying severity. ACE2 binding inhibition was reduced for ten out of eleven variants examined compared to wild-type, especially for those displaying the E484K mutation such as VOCs beta and gamma. ACE2 binding inhibition, while highly individualistic, positively correlated with IgG levels. ACE2 binding inhibition also correlated with disease severity up to WHO grade 7, after which it reduced.

Introduction: Delirium is recognized as a severe complication of coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19-associated delirium has been linked to worse patient outcomes and is considered to be of multifactorial origin. Here we sought to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, along with its impact on clinical outcome. Methods: Consecutive adult COVID-19 patients admitted to a tertiary academic referral hospital between March 1^st and December 31^st, 2020 were included. Potential risk factors for delirium were evaluated, including: age, gender, disease severity (as per the highest WHO grading reached during admission), laboratory parameters for infection and renal function (as per their most extreme values), and presence of comorbidities. To assess the relative strength of risk factors for predicting the occurrence of delirium, we performed a random-forest survival analysis. Results: 347 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR test and median age 68.2 [IQR 55.5, 80.5] years were included. Of those, 79 patients (22.8%) developed delirium, 81 (23.3%) were transferred to ICU, 58 (16.7%) died. 163 (73.8%) patients were discharged home, 13 (5.9%) to another hospital, 32 (14.5%) to nursing homes, 13 (5.9%) to rehabilitation with an overall median admission-to-discharge time of 53 [IQR 14, 195] days. The strongest predictors for the occurrence of delirium were blood urea nitrogen (minimal depth value (MD): 3.33), age (MD: 3.75), disease severity (as captured by WHO grading; MD: 3.93), leukocyte count (MD: 4.22), the presence of a neurodegenerative history (MD: 4.43), ferritin (MD: 4.46) and creatinine (MD: 4.59) levels. Conclusion: The risk of delirium in COVID-19 can be stratified based on COVID-19 disease severity and–similar to delirium associated with other respiratory infections–the factors advanced age, neurodegenerative disease history, and presence of elevated infection and renal-retention parameters. Screening for these risk factors may facilitate early identification of patients at high-risk for COVID-19-associated delirium.

Background: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased.Methods: We considered 4128 COVID‐19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS‐CoV‐2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings.Results: A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID‐19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown.Conclusion: Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID‐19 patients.

Background/Objectives: While antibiotic prophylaxis is crucial for preventing infections, its impact on the development of antibiotic-resistant infections and clinical outcomes remains underexplored. We aimed to systematically assess the impact of medical and surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) on the development of antibiotic-resistant infections, clinical outcomes, and costs. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on antibiotic-resistant infections, mortality, length of hospital stay, and/or costs was conducted in hemato-oncological or surgical patient populations. Pooled estimates of the relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) were derived using random-effect meta-analysis. Results: Of 10,409 screened studies, 109 (30%) comprising 131,519 patients were included. In 55 hemato-oncological studies, prophylaxis significantly reduced Gram-negative infections (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.59) without an effect on mortality (RR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.15), while the risk of developing an infection resistant to prophylactic antibiotics during hospitalization was doubled (RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.88 to 2.23). The length of hospitalization was reduced by 1.85 days. Among 54 surgical studies, SAP lowered surgical-site infections (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.69). Extending prophylaxis beyond the recommended duration did not improve infection rates (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.24). No association was demonstrated between prophylaxis adjusted by colonization status and the development of resistant infections. Conclusion: Though proven beneficial, our results highlight the critical need for targeted antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) in both settings. A meticulous risk assessment balancing the benefits of preventing life-threatening infections against the risk of driving antimicrobial resistance, and a tailored ASP, is urgently needed for hemato-oncological patients.