Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes in patients infected with different SARS-CoV-2 variants at one hospital during three phases of the COVID-19 epidemic in Marseille, France.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the demographics, clinical characteristics and severity of patients infected with nine different SARS-CoV-2 variants, during three phases of the COVID-19 epidemic in Marseille.

Methods

A single centre retrospective cohort study was conducted in 1760 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 of Nextstrain clades 20A, 20B, and 20C (first phase, February-May 2020), Pangolin lineages B.1.177 (we named Marseille-2) and B.1.160 (Marseille-4) variants (second phase, June-December 2020), and B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (gamma) and A.27 (Marseille-501) variants (third phase, January 2021-today). Outcomes were the occurrence of clinical failures, including hospitalisation, transfer to the intensive-care unit, and death.

Results

During each phase, no major differences were observed with regards to age and gender distribution, the prevalence of chronic diseases, and clinical symptoms between variants circulating in a given phase. The B.1.177 and B.1.160 variants were associated with more severe outcomes. Infections occurring during the second phase were associated with a higher rate of death as compared to infections during the first and third phases. Patients in the second phase were more likely to be hospitalised than those in the third phase. Patients infected during the third phase were more frequently obese than others.

Conclusion

A large cohort study is recommended to evaluate the transmissibility and to better characterise the clinical severity of emerging variants.

SUBMITTER: Hoang VT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8462069 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in sewage has been proposed as a simple and unbiased means of assessing epidemic evolution and the efficiency of the COVID-19 control measures. The past year has been marked by the emergence of variants that have led to a succession of epidemic waves. It thus appears that monitoring the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater alone is insufficient, and it may be important in the future to also monitor the evolution of these variants. We used a real-time RT-PCR screening test for variants in the wastewater of our city to assess the effectiveness of direct SARS-CoV-2 sequencing from the same wastewater. We compared the genome sequencing results obtained over the large RS network and the smaller B7 network with the different distributions of the variants observed by RT-PCR screening. The prevalence of the "UK variant" in the RS and B7 networks was estimated to be 70% and 8% using RT-PCR screening compared to 95% and 64% using genome sequencing, respectively. The latter values were close to the epidemiology observed in patients of the corresponding area, which were 91% and 58%, respectively. Genome sequencing in sewage identified SARS-CoV-2 of lineage B.1.525 in B7 at 27% (37% in patients), whereas it was completely missed by RT-PCR. We thus determined that direct sequencing makes it possible to observe, in wastewater, a distribution of the variants comparable to that revealed by genomic monitoring in patients and that this method is more accurate than RT-PCR. It also shows that, rather than a single large sample, it would be preferable to analyse several targeted samples if we want to more appropriately assess the geographical distribution of the different variants. In conclusion, this work supports the wider surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants in wastewater by genome sequencing and targeting small areas on the condition of having a sequencing capacity and, when this is not the case, to developing more precise screening tests based on the multiplexed detection of the mutations of interest.

Project description:BackgroundIn the early stage of COVID-19 epidemic, the Chinese mainland once effectively controlled the epidemic, but COVID-19 eventually spread faster and faster in the world. The purpose of this study is to clarify the differences in the epidemic data of COVID-19 in different areas and phases in Chinese mainland in 2020, and to analyze the possible factors affecting the occurrence and development of the epidemic.MethodsWe divided the Chinese mainland into areas I, I and III, and divided the epidemic process into phases I to IV: limited cases, accelerated increase, decelerated increase and containment phases. We also combined phases II and III as outbreak phase. The epidemic data included the duration of different phases, the numbers of confirmed cases, asymptomatic infections, and the proportion of imported cases from abroad.ResultsIn area I, II and III, only area I has a Phase I, and the Phase II and III of area I are longer. In Phase IV, there is a 17-day case clearing period in area I, while that in area II and III are 2 and 0 days, respectively. In phase III or the whole outbreak phase, the average daily increase of confirmed cases in area I was higher than that in areas II and III (P = 0.009 and P = 0.001 in phase III; P = 0.034 and P = 0.002 in the whole outbreak phase), and the average daily in-hospital cases were most in area I and least in area III (P = 0.000, P = 0.000, and P = 0.000 in phase III; P = 0.000, P = 0.000, and P = 0.009 in the whole outbreak phase). The average number of daily in-hospital COVID-19 cases in phase III was more than that in phase II in each area (P = 0.000, P = 0.000, and P = 0.001). In phase IV, from March 18, 2020 to January 1, 2021, the increase of confirmed cases in area III was higher than areas I and II (both P = 0.000), and the imported cases from abroad in Chinese mainland accounted for more than 55-61%. From June 16 to July 2, 2020, the number of new asymptomatic infections in area III was higher than that in area II (P = 0.000), while there was zero in area I. From July 3, 2020 to January 1, 2021, the increased COVID-19 cases in area III were 3534, while only 14 and 0, respectively, in areas I and II.ConclusionsThe worst epidemic areas in Chinese mainland before March 18, 2020 and after June 15, 2020 were area I and area III, respectively, and area III had become the main battlefield for Chinese mainland to fight against imported epidemic since March 18, 2020. In Wuhan, human COVID-19 infection might occur before December 8, 2019, while the outbreak might occur before January 16 or even 10, 2020. Insufficient understanding of COVID-19 hindered the implementation of early effective isolation measures, leading to COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, and strict isolation measures were effective in controlling the epidemic. The import of foreign COVID-19 cases has made it difficult to control the epidemic of area III. When humans are once again faced with potentially infectious new diseases, it is appropriate to first and foremost take strict quarantine measures as soon as possible, and mutual cooperation between regions should be explored to combat the epidemic.