Factors Associated with Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 Receiving Prolonged Ventilatory Support.

Background: Since its emergence in early 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pneumonia has caused a global strain on intensive care unit (ICU) resources with many intubated patients requiring prolonged ventilatory support. Outcomes for patients with COVID-19 who receive prolonged intubation (>21 days) and possible predictors of mortality in this group are not well established. Patients and Methods: Data were prospectively collected from adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation from March 2020 through December 2021 across a system of 11 hospitals. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Factors associated with mortality were evaluated using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Six hundred six patients were placed on mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia during the study period, with in-hospital mortality of 40.3% (n = 244). Increased age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.09), increased creatinine (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), and receiving corticosteroids (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.20-5.98) were associated with mortality. Intubations lasting longer than 21 days (n = 140) had a lower in-hospital mortality of 25.7% (n = 36; p < 0.001). Increasing Elixhauser comorbidity index (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19) and receiving corticosteroids (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.06-3.47) were associated with need for prolonged ventilation. In this group, increased age (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08) and non-English speaking (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.13-12.3) were associated with mortality. Conclusions: In-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia occurs primarily in the first 21 days after intubation, possibly related to the early active inflammatory process. In patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased age and being non-English speaking were associated with mortality.

Comparison of Outcomes and Process of Care for Patients Treated at Hospitals Dedicated for COVID-19 Care vs Other Hospitals.

Importance: Early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the M Health Fairview Hospital System established dedicated hospitals for establishing cohorts and caring for patients with COVID-19, yet the association between treatment at COVID-19-dedicated hospitals and mortality and complications is not known. Objective: To analyze the mortality rate and complications associated with treatment at the COVID-19-dedicated hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated data prospectively collected from March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, from 11 hospitals in Minnesota, including 2 hospitals created solely to care for patients with COVID-19. Data obtained included demographic characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of interest for all patients with a confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to this hospital system during the study period. Exposures: Patients were grouped based on whether they received treatment from 1 of the 2 COVID-19-dedicated hospitals compared with the remainder of the hospitals within the hospital system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariate analyses, including risk-adjusted logistic regression and propensity score matching, were performed to evaluate the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes, including complications and use of COVID-specific therapeutics. Results: There were 5504 patients with COVID-19 admitted during the study period (median age, 62.5 [IQR, 45.0-75.6] years; 2854 women [51.9%]). Of these, 2077 patients (37.7%) (median age, 63.4 [IQR, 50.7-76.1] years; 1080 men [52.0%]) were treated at 1 of the 2 COVID-19-dedicated hospitals compared with 3427 (62.3%; median age, 62.0 [40.0-75.1] years; 1857 women (54.2%) treated at other hospitals. The mortality rate was 11.6% (n = 241) at the dedicated hospitals compared with 8.0% (n = 274) at the other hospitals (P < .001). However, risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly lower for patients in the COVID-19-dedicated hospitals in both the unmatched group (n = 2077; odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95) and the propensity score-matched group (n = 1317; OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99). The rate of overall complications in the propensity score-matched group was significantly lower (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99) and the use of COVID-19-specific therapeutics including deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (83.9% vs 56.9%; P < .001), high-dose corticosteroids (56.1% vs 22.2%; P < .001), remdesivir (61.5% vs 44.5%; P < .001), and tocilizumab (7.9% vs 2.0; P < .001) was significantly higher. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, COVID-19-dedicated hospitals had multiple benefits, including providing high-volume repetitive treatment and isolating patients with the infection. This experience suggests improved in-hospital mortality for patients treated at dedicated hospitals owing to improved processes of care and supports the use of establishing cohorts for future pandemics.

Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009.

Characterizing COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and associated comorbidities and complication profiles.

PURPOSE: Heterogeneity has been observed in outcomes of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Identification of clinical phenotypes may facilitate tailored therapy and improve outcomes. The purpose of this study is to identify specific clinical phenotypes across COVID-19 patients and compare admission characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients from March 7, 2020 to August 25, 2020 at 14 U.S. hospitals. Ensemble clustering was performed on 33 variables collected within 72 hours of admission. Principal component analysis was performed to visualize variable contributions to clustering. Multinomial regression models were fit to compare patient comorbidities across phenotypes. Multivariable models were fit to estimate associations between phenotype and in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The database included 1,022 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Three clinical phenotypes were identified (I, II, III), with 236 [23.1%] patients in phenotype I, 613 [60%] patients in phenotype II, and 173 [16.9%] patients in phenotype III. Patients with respiratory comorbidities were most commonly phenotype III (p = 0.002), while patients with hematologic, renal, and cardiac (all p<0.001) comorbidities were most commonly phenotype I. Adjusted odds of respiratory, renal, hepatic, metabolic (all p<0.001), and hematological (p = 0.02) complications were highest for phenotype I. Phenotypes I and II were associated with 7.30-fold (HR:7.30, 95% CI:(3.11-17.17), p<0.001) and 2.57-fold (HR:2.57, 95% CI:(1.10-6.00), p = 0.03) increases in hazard of death relative to phenotype III. CONCLUSION: We identified three clinical COVID-19 phenotypes, reflecting patient populations with different comorbidities, complications, and clinical outcomes. Future research is needed to determine the utility of these phenotypes in clinical practice and trial design.

A multi-center phase II randomized clinical trial of losartan on symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), disrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis, potentially contributing to lung injury. Treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), such as losartan, may mitigate these effects, though induction of ACE2 could increase viral entry, replication, and worsen disease. METHODS: This study represents a placebo-controlled blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of losartan on outpatients with COVID-19 across three hospital systems with numerous community sites in Minnesota, U.S. Participants included symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 not already taking ACE-inhibitors or ARBs, enrolled within 7 days of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to 1:1 losartan (25 mg orally twice daily unless estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR, was reduced, when dosing was reduced to once daily) versus placebo for 10 days, and all patients and outcome assesors were blinded. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 15 days. Secondary outcomes included functional status, dyspnea, temperature, and viral load. (clinicatrials.gov, NCT04311177, closed to new participants). FINDINGS: From April to November 2020, 117 participants were randomized 58 to losartan and 59 to placebo, and all were analyzed under intent to treat principles. The primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two arms based on Barnard's test [losartan arm: 3 events (5.2% 95% CI 1.1, 14.4%) versus placebo arm: 1 event (1.7%; 95% CI 0.0, 9.1%)]; proportion difference -3.5% (95% CI -13.2, 4.8%); p = 0.32]. Viral loads were not statistically different between treatment groups at any time point. Adverse events per 10 patient days did not differ signifcantly [0.33 (95% CI 0.22-0.49) for losartan vs. 0.37 (95% CI 0.25-0.55) for placebo]. Due to a lower than expected hospitalization rate and low likelihood of a clinically important treatment effect, the trial was terminated early. INTERPRETATION: In this multicenter blinded RCT for outpatients with mild symptomatic COVID-19 disease, losartan did not reduce hospitalizations, though assessment was limited by low event rate. Importantly, viral load was not statistically affected by treatment. This study does not support initiation of losartan for low-risk outpatients.

Understanding the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-SARS-CoV axis: a comprehensive review.

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been declared a global pandemic with significant morbidity and mortality since first appearing in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. As many countries are grappling with the onset of their epidemics, pharmacotherapeutics remain lacking. The window of opportunity to mitigate downstream morbidity and mortality is narrow but remains open. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is crucial to the homeostasis of both the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Importantly, SARS-CoV-2 utilises and interrupts this pathway directly, which could be described as the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-SARS-CoV (RAAS-SCoV) axis. There exists significant controversy and confusion surrounding how anti-hypertensive agents might function along this pathway. This review explores the current state of knowledge regarding the RAAS-SCoV axis (informed by prior studies of SARS-CoV), how this relates to our currently evolving pandemic, and how these insights might guide our next steps in an evidence-based manner. OBSERVATIONS: This review discusses the role of the RAAS-SCoV axis in acute lung injury and the effects, risks and benefits of pharmacological modification of this axis. There may be an opportunity to leverage the different aspects of RAAS inhibitors to mitigate indirect viral-induced lung injury. Concerns have been raised that such modulation might exacerbate the disease. While relevant preclinical, experimental models to date favour a protective effect of RAAS-SCoV axis inhibition on both lung injury and survival, clinical data related to the role of RAAS modulation in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 remain limited. CONCLUSION: Proposed interventions for SARS-CoV-2 predominantly focus on viral microbiology and aim to inhibit viral cellular injury. While these therapies are promising, immediate use may not be feasible, and the time window of their efficacy remains a major unanswered question. An alternative approach is the modulation of the specific downstream pathophysiological effects caused by the virus that lead to morbidity and mortality. We propose a preponderance of evidence that supports clinical equipoise regarding the efficacy of RAAS-based interventions, and the imminent need for a multisite randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate the inhibition of the RAAS-SCoV axis on acute lung injury in COVID-19.