The diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests for Ebola virus disease: a systematic review

Background Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a dangerous condition that can cause an epidemic. Several rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed to diagnose EVD. These RDTs promise to be quicker and easier to use than the current reference standard diagnostic test, PCR. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for EVD. Methods A systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. Data sources The following bibliographic databases were searched from inception to present: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO Global Index Medicus database, Web of Science, PROSPERO register of Systematic Reviews, and Clinical Trials.Gov. Study eligibility criteria Diagnostic accuracy studies. Participants Patients presenting to the Ebola treatment units with symptoms of EVD. Interventions RDTs; reference standard, RT-PCR. Assessment of risk of bias Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Methods of data synthesis Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy study were produced for each device type. Subgroup analyses were performed for RDT type and specimen material. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of trial design and bias. Results We included 15 diagnostic accuracy studies. The summary estimate of sensitivity for lateral flow assays was 86.1% (95% CI, 86–86.2%), with specificity of 97% (95% CI, 96.1–97.9%). The summary estimate for rapid PCR devices was sensitivity of 96.2% (95% CI, 95.3–97.9%), with a specificity of 96.8% (95% CI, 95.3–97.9%). Pre-specified subgroup analyses demonstrated that RDTs were effective on a range of specimen material. Overall, the risk of bias throughout the included studies was low, but it was high in patient selection and uncertain in the flow and timing domains. Conclusions RDTs possess both high sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-PCR among symptomatic patients presenting to the Ebola treatment units. Our findings support the use of RDTs as a ‘rule in’ test to expedite treatment and vaccination

Trans-Atlantic Aeromedical Repatriation of Multiple COVID-19 Patients: a hybrid military-civilian model

Here we report the first known transcontinental aeromedical evacuation of a large number (55) of known and suspected positive COVID-19 patients. These patients were evacuated from Havana, Cuba to the UK through MOD Boscombe Down as part of Operation BROADSHARE, the British military’s overseas response to COVID-19. We describe the safe transfer of patients with COVID-19 using a combined military-civilian model. In our view, we have demonstrated that COVID-19 patients can be aero medically transferred whilst ensuring the safety of patients and crew using a hybrid military-civilian model; this report contains lessons for future aeromedical evacuation of COVID-19 patients

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status

Background: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. Methods: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this question and assess whether differences between these groups are context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. Findings: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. Conclusions: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. Funding: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Long-term neurological symptoms after acute COVID-19 illness requiring hospitalization in adult patients: insights from the ISARIC-COVID-19 follow-up study

in this study we aimed to characterize the type and prevalence of neurological symptoms related to neurological long-COVID-19 from a large international multicenter cohort of adults after discharge from hospital for acute COVID-19

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital with and without respiratory symptoms

Background: COVID-19 is primarily known as a respiratory illness; however, many patients present to hospital without respiratory symptoms. The association between non-respiratory presentations of COVID-19 and outcomes remains unclear. We investigated risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients with no respiratory symptoms (NRS) and respiratory symptoms (RS) at hospital admission. Methods: This study describes clinical features, physiological parameters, and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, stratified by the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms at hospital admission. RS patients had one or more of: cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose or wheezing; while NRS patients did not. Results: Of 178,640 patients in the study, 86.4 % presented with RS, while 13.6 % had NRS. NRS patients were older (median age: NRS: 74 vs RS: 65) and less likely to be admitted to the ICU (NRS: 36.7 % vs RS: 37.5 %). NRS patients had a higher crude in-hospital case-fatality ratio (NRS 41.1 % vs. RS 32.0 %), but a lower risk of death after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.88 [0.83-0.93]). Conclusion: Approximately one in seven COVID-19 patients presented at hospital admission without respiratory symptoms. These patients were older, had lower ICU admission rates, and had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for confounders

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable