학술논문
Clinical phenotypes and outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants BA.2, BA.5 and BQ.1.1 in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective, multicenter cohort study
Document Type
article
Author
Nicolas de Prost; Etienne Audureau; Sébastien Préau; Raphaël Favory; Aurélie Guigon; Pierre Bay; Nicholas Heming; Elyanne Gault; Tài Pham; Amal Chaghouri; Guillaume Voiriot; Laurence Morand-Joubert; Sébastien Jochmans; Aurélia Pitsch; Sylvie Meireles; Damien Contou; Amandine Henry; Adrien Joseph; Marie-Laure Chaix; Fabrice Uhel; Diane Descamps; Malo Emery; Claudio Garcia-Sanchez; Charles-Edouard Luyt; Stéphane Marot; Frédéric Pène; Anne-Sophie Lhonneur; Stéphane Gaudry; Ségolène Brichler; Lucile Picard; Armand Mekontso Dessap; Christophe Rodriguez; Jean-Michel Pawlotsky; Slim Fourati; the SEVARVIR investigators
Source
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2023)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2197-425X
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite current broad natural and vaccine-induced protection, a substantial number of patients infected with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (e.g., BF.7 and BQ.1.1) still experience severe COVID-19. Real-life studies investigating the impact of these variants on clinical outcomes of severe cases are currently not available. We performed a prospective multicenter observational cohort study. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure admitted between December 7, 2021 and December 15, 2022, in one of the 20 participating intensive care units (17 from the Greater Paris area and 3 from the North of France) were eligible for inclusion if they had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Full-length SARS-CoV-2 genomes from all included patients were sequenced by means of next-generation sequencing. The primary endpoint of the study was day-28 mortality. Results The study included 158 patients infected with three groups of Omicron sublineages, including (i) BA.2 variants and their early sublineages referred as “BA.2” (n = 50), (ii) early BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages (including BA.5.1 and BA.5.2, n = 61) referred as “BA.4/BA.5”, and (iii) recent emerging BA.5 sublineages (including BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, BE.1 and CE.1, n = 47) referred as “BQ.1.1”. The clinical phenotype of BQ1.1-infected patients compared to earlier BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, showed more frequent obesity and less frequent immunosuppression. There was no significant difference between Omicron sublineage groups regarding the severity of the disease at ICU admission, need for organ failure support during ICU stay, nor day 28 mortality (21.7%, n = 10/47 in BQ.1.1 group vs 26.7%, n = 16/61 in BA.4/BA.5 vs 22.0%, n = 11/50 in BA.2, p = 0.791). No significant relationship was found between any SARS-CoV-2 substitution and/or deletion on the one hand and survival on the other hand over hospital follow-up. Conclusions Critically-ill patients with Omicron BQ.1.1 infection showed a different clinical phenotype than other patients infected with earlier Omicron sublineage but no day-28 mortality difference.