COVID-19 Variants in Critically Ill Patients: A Comparison of the Delta and Omicron Variant Profiles

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease is a pandemic that has disrupted many human lives, threatening people’s physical and mental health. Each pandemic wave struck in different ways, infectiveness-wise and mortality-wise. This investigation focuses on critically ill patients affected by the last two variants, Delta and Omicron, and aims to analyse if any difference exists between the two groups. Methods: intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 consecutive admissions between 1 October 2021 and 31 March 2022 were recorded daily, and data concerning the patients’ demographics, variants, main comorbidities, ICU parameters on admission, and the outcome were analysed by a univariate procedure and by a multivariate analysis. Results: 65 patients were enrolled, 31 (47.69%) belonging to the Omicron versus 34 (52.31%) to the Delta group. The mortality rate was 52.94% for the Omicron group versus 41.9% for the Delta group. A univariate analysis showed that the Omicron variant was associated with total comorbidities number, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), pre-existing pulmonary disease, vaccination status, and acute kidney injury (AKI). In stepwise multivariate analysis, the total number of comorbidities was positively associated with the Omicron group, while pulmonary embolism was negatively correlated with the Omicron group. Conclusion: Omicron appears to have lost some of the hallmarks of the Delta variant, such as endothelialitis and more limited cellular tropism when it comes to the patients in the ICU. Further studies are encouraged to explore different therapeutic approaches to treat critical patients with COVID-19.

Related collections

Most cited references 33

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Zhaohai Zheng, Fang Fang Peng, Buyun Xu … (2020)

Background An epidemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) began in December 2019 and triggered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). We aimed to find risk factors for the progression of COVID-19 to help reducing the risk of critical illness and death for clinical help. Methods The data of COVID-19 patients until March 20, 2020 were retrieved from four databases. We statistically analyzed the risk factors of critical/mortal and non-critical COVID-19 patients with meta-analysis. Results Thirteen studies were included in Meta-analysis, including a total number of 3027 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Male, older than 65, and smoking were risk factors for disease progression in patients with COVID-19 (male: OR = 1.76, 95% CI (1.41, 2.18), P 40U/L, creatinine(Cr) ≥ 133mol/L, hypersensitive cardiac troponin I(hs-cTnI) > 28pg/mL, procalcitonin(PCT) > 0.5ng/mL, lactatede hydrogenase(LDH) > 245U/L, and D-dimer > 0.5mg/L predicted the deterioration of disease while white blood cells(WBC) 40U/L:OR=4.00, 95% CI (2.46, 6.52), P 28 pg/mL: OR = 43.24, 95% CI (9.92, 188.49), P 0.5 ng/mL: OR = 43.24, 95% CI (9.92, 188.49), P 245U/L: OR = 43.24, 95% CI (9.92, 188.49), P 0.5mg/L: OR = 43.24, 95% CI (9.92, 188.49), P < 0.00001; WBC < 4 × 109/L: OR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.17, 0.51), P < 0.00001]. Conclusion Male, aged over 65, smoking patients might face a greater risk of developing into the critical or mortal condition and the comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory diseases could also greatly affect the prognosis of the COVID-19. Clinical manifestation such as fever, shortness of breath or dyspnea and laboratory examination such as WBC, AST, Cr, PCT, LDH, hs-cTnI and D-dimer could imply the progression of COVID-19.

0 comments Cited 1116 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Multiorgan and Renal Tropism of SARS-CoV-2

Victor G. Puelles, Marc Lütgehetmann, Maja T Lindenmeyer … (2020)

To the Editor: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) preferentially infects cells in the respiratory tract, 1,2 but its direct affinity for organs other than the lungs remains poorly defined. Here, we present data from an autopsy series of 27 patients (see the clinical data in Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org) that show that SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in multiple organs, including the lungs, pharynx, heart, liver, brain, and kidneys. We first quantified the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in autopsy tissue samples obtained from 22 patients who had died from Covid-19. Seventeen patients (77%) had more than two coexisting conditions (Figure 1A), and a greater number of coexisting conditions was associated with SARS-CoV-2 tropism for the kidneys (Table S2), even in patients without a history of chronic kidney disease (Table S3). The highest levels of SARS-CoV-2 copies per cell were detected in the respiratory tract, and lower levels were detected the kidneys, liver, heart, brain, and blood (Figure 1B). These findings indicate a broad organotropism of SARS-CoV-2. Since the kidneys are among the most common targets of SARS-CoV-2, we performed in silico analysis of publicly available data sets of single-cell RNA sequencing. This analysis revealed that RNA for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), and cathepsin L (CTSL) — RNA of genes that are considered to facilitate SARS-CoV-2 infection 3 — is enriched in multiple kidney-cell types from fetal development through adulthood (Fig. S1). This enrichment may facilitate SARS-CoV-2–associated kidney injury, as previously suggested. 4 We also quantified the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in precisely defined kidney compartments obtained with the use of tissue microdissection from 6 patients who underwent autopsy (1 patient who was included in the previously mentioned 22 patients as an internal negative control, plus 5 additional patients). Three of these 6 patients had a detectable SARS-CoV-2 viral load in all kidney compartments examined, with preferential targeting of glomerular cells (Fig. S2). We also detected viral RNA and protein with high spatial resolution using in situ hybridization and indirect immunofluorescence with confocal microscopy (Figure 1C). Data on additional controls are provided in Figures S3 and S4. On the basis of these findings, renal tropism is a potential explanation of commonly reported new clinical signs of kidney injury in patients with Covid-19, 5 even in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are not critically ill. Our results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 has an organotropism beyond the respiratory tract, including the kidneys, liver, heart, and brain, and we speculate that organotropism influences the course of Covid-19 disease and, possibly, aggravates preexisting conditions.

0 comments Cited 975 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in South Africa: a data linkage study

Nicole Wolter, Waasila Jassat, Sibongile Walaza … (2022)

Background The SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant of concern was identified in South Africa in November, 2021, and was associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases. We aimed to assess the clinical severity of infections with the omicron variant using S gene target failure (SGTF) on the Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 PCR test as a proxy. Methods We did data linkages for national, South African COVID-19 case data, SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data, SARS-CoV-2 genome data, and COVID-19 hospital admissions data. For individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 via TaqPath PCR tests, infections were designated as either SGTF or non-SGTF. The delta variant was identified by genome sequencing. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we assessed disease severity and hospitalisations by comparing individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections diagnosed between Oct 1 and Nov 30, 2021, and we further assessed disease severity by comparing SGTF-infected individuals diagnosed between Oct 1 and Nov 30, 2021, with delta variant-infected individuals diagnosed between April 1 and Nov 9, 2021. Findings From Oct 1 (week 39), 2021, to Dec 6 (week 49), 2021, 161 328 cases of COVID-19 were reported in South Africa. 38 282 people were diagnosed via TaqPath PCR tests and 29 721 SGTF infections and 1412 non-SGTF infections were identified. The proportion of SGTF infections increased from two (3·2%) of 63 in week 39 to 21 978 (97·9%) of 22 455 in week 48. After controlling for factors associated with hospitalisation, individuals with SGTF infections had significantly lower odds of admission than did those with non-SGTF infections (256 [2·4%] of 10 547 vs 121 [12·8%] of 948; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·2, 95% CI 0·1–0·3). After controlling for factors associated with disease severity, the odds of severe disease were similar between hospitalised individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections (42 [21%] of 204 vs 45 [40%] of 113; aOR 0·7, 95% CI 0·3–1·4). Compared with individuals with earlier delta variant infections, SGTF-infected individuals had a significantly lower odds of severe disease (496 [62·5%] of 793 vs 57 [23·4%] of 244; aOR 0·3, 95% CI 0·2–0·5), after controlling for factors associated with disease severity. Interpretation Our early analyses suggest a significantly reduced odds of hospitalisation among individuals with SGTF versus non-SGTF infections diagnosed during the same time period. SGTF-infected individuals had a significantly reduced odds of severe disease compared with individuals infected earlier with the delta variant. Some of this reduced severity is probably a result of previous immunity. Funding The South African Medical Research Council, the South African National Department of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the African Society of Laboratory Medicine, Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.