Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Clinical Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic, March to October 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years; 56% [5033 of 8989] men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 through October 30, 2020) and 6648 in the pre-COVID-19 (October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether prespecified study outcomes varied by time frames. RESULTS: The adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% (872 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 10.0% (234 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction, 23%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% (645 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 11.3% (264 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase, 16%; number of admissions needed for one additional death, 62.5; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study time frames, the disease severity, HF subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of HF medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-COVID-19 time frame.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Do ventilatory parameters influence outcome in patients with severe acute respiratory infection? Secondary analysis of an international, multicentre14-day inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possible association between ventilatory settings on the first day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this pre-planned sub-study of a prospective, multicentre observational study, 441 patients with SARI who received controlled IMV during the ICU stay were included in the analysis. RESULTS: ICU and hospital mortality rates were 23.1 and 28.1%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, tidal volume and respiratory rate on the first day of IMV were not associated with an increased risk of death; however, higher driving pressure (DP: odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.1, p = 0.011), plateau pressure (Pplat) (OR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04-1.13, p < 0.001) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.24, p = 0.006) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. In subgroup analysis, in hypoxemic patients and in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), higher DP, Pplat, and PEEP were associated with increased risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SARI receiving IMV, higher DP, Pplat and PEEP, and not tidal volume, were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death, especially in those with hypoxemia or ARDS.

Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients.

BACKGROUNDConvalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19.METHODSThus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma.RESULTSThe incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was <1%. Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n = 4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (n = 7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n = 3). However, only 2 of 36 SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The 7-day mortality rate was 14.9%.CONCLUSIONGiven the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04338360.FUNDINGMayo Clinic, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (75A50120C00096), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002377), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R35HL139854 and R01 HL059842), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5T32DK07352), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PDF-532926-2019), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (R21 AI145356, R21 AI152318, and AI152078), Schwab Charitable Fund, United Health Group, National Basketball Association, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Octapharma USA Inc.

Mortality in individuals treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma varies with the geographic provenance of donors.

Successful therapeutics and vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have harnessed the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists as locally evolving variants suggests that immunological differences may impact the effectiveness of antibody-based treatments such as convalescent plasma and vaccines. Considering that near-sourced convalescent plasma likely reflects the antigenic composition of local viral strains, we hypothesize that convalescent plasma has a higher efficacy, as defined by death within 30 days of transfusion, when the convalescent plasma donor and treated patient were in close geographic proximity. Results of a series of modeling techniques applied to approximately 28,000 patients from the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma program (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04338360) support this hypothesis. This work has implications for the interpretation of clinical studies, the ability to develop effective COVID-19 treatments, and, potentially, for the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as additional locally-evolving variants continue to emerge.

Prioritizing studies of COVID-19 and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 altered research in Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs in an unprecedented manner, leading to adjustments for COVID-19 research. METHODS: CTSA members volunteered to conduct a review on the impact of CTSA network on COVID-19 pandemic with the assistance from NIH survey team in October 2020. The survey questions included the involvement of CTSAs in decision-making concerning the prioritization of COVID-19 studies. Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted to analyze the survey data. RESULTS: 60 of the 64 CTSAs completed the survey. Most CTSAs lacked preparedness but promptly responded to the pandemic. Early disruption of research triggered, enhanced CTSA engagement, creation of dedicated research areas and triage for prioritization of COVID-19 studies. CTSAs involvement in decision-making were 16.75 times more likely to create dedicated diagnostic laboratories (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17-129.39; P < 0.01). Likewise, institutions with internal funding were 3.88 times more likely to establish COVID-19 dedicated research (95% CI = 1.12-13.40; P < 0.05). CTSAs were instrumental in securing funds and facilitating establishment of laboratory/clinical spaces for COVID-19 research. Workflow was modified to support contracting and IRB review at most institutions with CTSAs. To mitigate chaos generated by competing clinical trials, central feasibility committees were often formed for orderly review/prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic emphasize the pivotal role of CTSAs in prioritizing studies and establishing the necessary research infrastructure, and the importance of prompt and flexible research leadership with decision-making capacity to manage future pandemics.

Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) under the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. Whether convalescent plasma with high antibody levels rather than low antibody levels is associated with a lower risk of death is unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective study based on a U.S. national registry, we determined the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels in convalescent plasma used to treat hospitalized adults with Covid-19. The primary outcome was death within 30 days after plasma transfusion. Patients who were enrolled through July 4, 2020, and for whom data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma transfusions and on 30-day mortality were available were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3082 patients included in this analysis, death within 30 days after plasma transfusion occurred in 115 of 515 patients (22.3%) in the high-titer group, 549 of 2006 patients (27.4%) in the medium-titer group, and 166 of 561 patients (29.6%) in the low-titer group. The association of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels with the risk of death from Covid-19 was moderated by mechanical ventilation status. A lower risk of death within 30 days in the high-titer group than in the low-titer group was observed among patients who had not received mechanical ventilation before transfusion (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.91), and no effect on the risk of death was observed among patients who had received mechanical ventilation (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, transfusion of plasma with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels was associated with a lower risk of death than transfusion of plasma with lower antibody levels. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338360.).

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research.

OBJECTIVE: To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care. CONCLUSION: Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

GM-CSF Neutralization With Lenzilumab in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Case-Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and risk factors for poor outcomes were treated with lenzilumab 600 mg intravenously for three doses through an emergency single-use investigational new drug application. Patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. We also identified a cohort of patients matched to the lenzilumab patients for age, sex, and disease severity. Study dates were March 13, 2020, to June 18, 2020. All patients were followed through hospital discharge or death. RESULTS: Twelve patients were treated with lenzilumab; 27 patients comprised the matched control cohort (untreated). Clinical improvement, defined as improvement of at least 2 points on the 8-point ordinal clinical endpoints scale, was observed in 11 of 12 (91.7%) patients treated with lenzilumab and 22 of 27 (81.5%) untreated patients. The time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter for the lenzilumab-treated group compared with the untreated cohort with a median of 5 days versus 11 days (P=.006). Similarly, the proportion of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen<315 mm Hg) was significantly reduced over time when treated with lenzilumab compared with untreated (P<.001). Significant improvement in inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin 6) and markers of disease severity (absolute lymphocyte count) were observed in patients who received lenzilumab, but not in untreated patients. Cytokine analysis showed a reduction in inflammatory myeloid cells 2 days after lenzilumab treatment. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events attributable to lenzilumab. CONCLUSION: In high-risk COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor neutralization with lenzilumab was safe and associated with faster improvement in clinical outcomes, including oxygenation, and greater reductions in inflammatory markers compared with a matched control cohort of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to validate these findings is ongoing (NCT04351152).

Safety Update: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on key safety metrics after transfusion of convalescent plasma in hospitalized coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients, having previously demonstrated safety in 5000 hospitalized patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 3 to June 2, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfused a convenience sample of 20,000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 convalescent plasma. RESULTS: The incidence of all serious adverse events was low; these included transfusion reactions (n=78; <1%), thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=113; <1%), and cardiac events (n=677, ~3%). Notably, the vast majority of the thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=75) and cardiac events (n=597) were judged to be unrelated to the plasma transfusion per se. The 7-day mortality rate was 13.0% (12.5%, 13.4%), and was higher among more critically ill patients relative to less ill counterparts, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit versus those not admitted (15.6 vs 9.3%), mechanically ventilated versus not ventilated (18.3% vs 9.9%), and with septic shock or multiple organ dysfunction/failure versus those without dysfunction/failure (21.7% vs 11.5%). CONCLUSION: These updated data provide robust evidence that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and support the notion that earlier administration of plasma within the clinical course of COVID-19 is more likely to reduce mortality.

Augmented curation of clinical notes from a massive EHR system reveals symptoms of impending COVID-19 diagnosis.

Understanding temporal dynamics of COVID-19 symptoms could provide fine-grained resolution to guide clinical decision-making. Here, we use deep neural networks over an institution-wide platform for the augmented curation of clinical notes from 77,167 patients subjected to COVID-19 PCR testing. By contrasting Electronic Health Record (EHR)-derived symptoms of COVID-19-positive (COVIDpos; n = 2,317) versus COVID-19-negative (COVIDneg; n = 74,850) patients for the week preceding the PCR testing date, we identify anosmia/dysgeusia (27.1-fold), fever/chills (2.6-fold), respiratory difficulty (2.2-fold), cough (2.2-fold), myalgia/arthralgia (2-fold), and diarrhea (1.4-fold) as significantly amplified in COVIDpos over COVIDneg patients. The combination of cough and fever/chills has 4.2-fold amplification in COVIDpos patients during the week prior to PCR testing, in addition to anosmia/dysgeusia, constitutes the earliest EHR-derived signature of COVID-19. This study introduces an Augmented Intelligence platform for the real-time synthesis of institutional biomedical knowledge. The platform holds tremendous potential for scaling up curation throughput, thus enabling EHR-powered early disease diagnosis.