ABSTRACT
Background. SARS-CoV-2 has been a leading cause of mortality worldwide for over two years. It continues to be a group effort to discover treatment to prevent further deterioration during the disease course. Positive outcomes have been observed in select patients with immune modulator therapy. Although large randomized controlled trials have investigated the use of immunomodulators in COVID-19 therapy, few have compared the differences in safety profiles and clinical outcomes between the different drugs. We studied the differences in outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with baricitinib versus tocilizumab. Methods. Adult patients admitted to Stony Brook University Hospital between April 2020 and April 2021 with high flow oxygen requirements due to severe COVID-19 pneumonia were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was the time to reduction of highest oxygen requirement 14 days after immune modulator therapy was administered or hospital discharge, whichever came first. Secondary endpoints include length of hospital stay (LOS), 28-day mortality, and serious adverse events. Results. 132 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were treated with immune modulators. One patient was excluded from primary and secondary analysis due to having received both tocilizumab and baricitinib. All patients received steroids and remdesivir. 73 received baricitinib and 58 received tocilizumab. Oxygen requirements at the initiation of either baricitnib or tocilizumab had a mean of 5.84+/-0.6 and 5.9 +/-0.7, respectively using the WHO ordinal scale. The mean time to oxygen down titration in the baricitinib group was similar (5.7+/-2.6 and 6.07+/-2.7 days). In continuous variable analysis, patients who received baricitinib had a longer duration of fever (6.0 days vs 3.6 days, p=0.04) and lower serum ferritin (909.9 ng/ml vs. 1331.8 ng/ml, p=0.09). LOS was not similar between the groups (mean 24.4 vs. 25.8, p=0.89). Hospital mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (32.9% vs. 27.6%, p=0.514). Conclusion. This study suggests similar outcomes for oxygen requirements, hospital length of stay, and mortality between baricitinib and tocilizumab when given in conjunction with remdesivir and steroids for severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
ABSTRACT
At the end of 2019, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) started and as of now, it is still the number one problem of the world today. This virus can be transmitted through droplets of saliva from an infected person which can be from a sneeze, cough, and exhales. As of now, there are a total of 111 million cases of the virus and there are technologies that were introduced to help in the detection of the infection and to reduce the spread of the virus. One of this technology is the Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Machine. This machine detects any specific genetic material, including a virus. Samples from the body are treated with several chemical solutions which remove substances and only allow Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) to remain. But the problem with this machine is the elicitation of false-positive and false-negative results and certain malfunctions. Due to the issues in using RT-PCR, our team has come up with a newer and improvised version of the machine and called it COVIDBIT. COVIDBIT is a more simplified and portable version of the RT-PCR at a cheaper price. In this study, the team analyzed COVIDBIT as a virus detection device and an alternative for RT-PCR machine using SEM model and found out that there is a significant difference in terms of effectiveness and portability in usage and showed that the 210 respondents from the medical industry are most likely to use these kinds of machine. © 2022 ACM.
ABSTRACT
Background: Vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinfammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome is a recently identifed disorder caused by somatic mutations in the UBA1 gene of myeloid cells. Various manifestations of pulmonary involvement have been reported, but a detailed description of lung involvement and radiologic fndings is lacking. Objectives: To describe lung involvement in VEXAS syndrome. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients iden-tifed at the Mayo Clinic with VEXAS syndrome since October 2020. Clinical records and chest high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans were reviewed. Results: Our cohort comprised 22 white men with a median age of 69 years (IQR 62-74, range 57-84). Hematologic disorders including multiple myeloma, myelodysplastic syndrome and pancytopenia were present in 10 patients (45%), rheumatologic diseases including granulomatosis with poly-angiitis, IgG4-related disease, polyarteritis nodosa, relapsing polychondritis, and rheumatoid arthritis were found in 10 patients (45%), and 4 patients had dermatologic presentations including Sweet syndrome, Schnitzer-like syndrome or drug rash with eosinophilia skin syndrome (DRESS). VEXAS syndrome-related features included fever (18, 82%), skin lesions (20, 91%), lung infiltrates (12, 55%), chondritis (10, 45%), venous thromboembolism (12, 55%), macrocytic anemia (21, 96%), and bone marrow vacuoles (21, 96%). Other manifestations observed were arthritis, scleritis, hoarseness and hearing loss. Median erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 69 mm/1st hour (IQR 34.3-118.8) and median C-reactive protein (CRP) of 55.5 mg/dL (IQR 11.4-98.8). The somatic mutations affecting methionine-41 (p.Met41) in UBA1 gene were: 11 (50%) p.Met41Thr, 7 (32%) p.Met41Val, 2 (9%) p.Met41Leu, and 2 (9%) in the splice site. All patients received glu-cocorticoids (GC) (median duration of treatment was 2.6 years);21 (96%) received conventional immunosuppressive agents (methotrexate, aza-thioprine, mycophenolate, leflunomide, cyclosporin, hydroxychloroquine, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib) and 9 (41%) received biologic agents (rituximab, tocilizumab, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, abatacept). Respiratory symptoms included dyspnea and cough present in 21 (95%) and 12 (55%), respectively, and were documented prior to VEXAS diagnosis. Most of the patients were non-smokers (14, 64%) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was present in 11 patients (50%). Seven patients (32%) used non-invasive ventilation, 6 used C-PAP, and 1 used Bi-PAP. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was available in 4 patients, and the findings were compatible with neutrophilic alveolitis in 3. Two patients had lung biopsies (2 transbronchial and 1 surgical) that showed ATTR amyloidosis and organizing pneumonia with lymphoid interstitial pneumonia, respectively. Pulmonary function tests were available in 9 (41%) patients and showed normal results in 5;3 patients had isolated reduction in DLCO and 1 with mild restriction. On chest HRCT, 16 patients (73%) had parenchymal changes including ground-glass opacities in 9, septal thickening in 4, and nodules in 3;pleural effusions were present in 3 patients, air-trapping in 3 patients and tracheomalacia in 1 patient. Follow-up chest HRCT was available for 8 patients (36%), the ground-glass opacities resolved in 5 patients, 3 patients manifested new or increased ground-glass opacities, and 1 patient had increased interlobular septal thickening. After 1 year of follow-up, 4 patients (17%) had died;3 due to pneumonia (2 COVID-19,1 bacterial) and 1 due to heart failure. VEXAS flares occurred in 18 patients (82%), the maximum number of relapses was 7, and they were mainly managed with GC and with changes in the immuno-suppressive regimen. Conclusion: Pulmonary involvement was documented by chest HRCT in most patients with VEXAS syndrome. Respiratory symptoms occurred in over one half of patients and about 20% had PFT abnormalities. The pulmonary manifestations of VEXAS are nonspecifc and characterized predominantly by infamma-tory parenchymal involvement.
ABSTRACT
Background. The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 is the causative agent for COVID-19 responsible for the ongoing global pandemic. The spike protein on its surface binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor helps to enter human cells. Neutralizing antibodies to this protein can be protective and helpful in alleviating symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) have been utilized in the U.S. under an emergency use authorization by the FDA, including bamlanivimab (BAM) and casirivimab-imdevimab (CAR/IMD). We report our experience of using COVID mAb. Methods. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients that received CAR/IMD or BAM between December 1st, 2020, and May 15th, 2021. Medical records were reviewed to determine demographic and clinical information as well as tolerability and effectiveness of mAb. Results. 463 patients with mild to moderate symptoms of SARS-CoV2 received mAb: 355(176 Men) BAM, 108(53 Men) CAR/IMD. The median BMI was 31 (17.4 to 62.5), 85% Caucasian, 4% Asian, 3% African American, 4% Hispanic, 4% others. The average duration of symptoms was 3.4 days and included cough (74%), malaise (71%), Headache (28%), dyspnea (28%), rhinorrhea (25%), fever (20%), diarrhea (18%), and anosmia (14%). Risk factors included hypertension (65%), diabetes mellitus (32%), coronary artery disease (22%), asthma (16%), COPD (9%), CHF (9%), CKD (8%), active malignancy (6%), and immunocompromised state (7%). Those who received BAM were older (p=0.000) and have underlying dementia and congestive heart failure (p=0.025 and 0.034, respectively). 27 patients (2 CAR/IMG, 25 BAM) got admitted to the hospital due to worsening of their respiratory status and were treated for COVID-19. 4 patients in the BAM group and 0 in the CAR/IMD group died. 2 patients developed a mild allergic reaction to CAR/IMD, no other side effects were reported in both groups. 37 patients (19 CAR/IMD, 18 BAM) received mRNA COVID vaccine prior. Overall mortality rate was 0.8%. There was no significant difference between BAM and CAR/IMR in terms of hospitalization (p= 0.104) or mortality (p=0.268). Conclusion. Treatment with BAM versus CAR/IMR was well tolerated and resulted in similar outcomes in terms of hospitalization or mortality.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The response to COVID infection has been associated with intense inflammation, and some patients have cardiac involvement. In a group of patients with COVID infection and shock whose ventricular function was characterized by echocardiography, we examined the relationship between levels of ferritin, an inflammatory marker that is elevated in COVID, and LV ejection fraction (EF). Methods: Of 1275 patients hospitalized with COVID pneumonia, 215 had shock requiring vasopressors. 162 had echocardiography to assess ventricular function and stroke volume. EF was measured using Simpson's rule and stroke volume (SV) by Doppler. Patients were divided into groups with low or preserved EF (EF or EF , cutoff <e45%), and low or normal cardiac index, (CI, CI or CI , cutoff ≤<e2.2 L/min/m2). Ferritin within 7 days of the echo was available in 147/162 patients. We examined the association between ferritin levels and ejection fraction. Results: Mean age was 66.7, EF 58.7±13.9;CI 2.41±0.89 L/min/m2 , ferritin 3036±2318 ng/mL (normal <336). Five patients had obstructive shock from pulmonary embolism (normal LVEF, low SV, RV dysfunction) and were excluded. The other 157 patients were divided into groups based on EF and CI (Figure). High ferritin levels correlated with low EF (r=-0.18, p=0.02), and ferritin levels were greatly increased in patients with a hemodynamic profile of cardiogenic shock. (EF CI , Figure, p=0.017 by ANOVA) Conclusion: COVID-induced shock had a cardiogenic profile (EF CI ) in 10% of patients, and another 5% had low EF but normal CI. Ferritin correlated with low EF and was increased in patients with a profile of cardiogenic shock. This suggests that marked inflammation may depress myocardial function in COVID patients with shock-analogous to a similar myocardial depression seen with bacterial-associated septic shock.
ABSTRACT
Background: The anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody tocilizumab has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia although the efficacy remains unknown. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 confirmed by nasal swab PCR for SARSCoV- 2 who were admitted to Stony Brook University Hospital in Suffolk County, New York between March 10th and April 2nd and received tocilizumab while undergoing mechanical ventilation in any intensive care unit were retrospectively analyzed from data available in the electronic medical record. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared to mechanically ventilated patients admitted during the same time period who received standard hospital protocol. Results: Forty-five patients received tocilizumab compared to seventy controls. Mean dose of tocilizumab given was 4.8mg/kg and mean time to receipt from initial intubation was 2.5 days. Baseline demographic characteristics, inflammatory markers, treatment with corticosteroids, and SOFA scores were similar between the two cohorts (Table 1). Patients who received tocilizumab had significantly lower Charlson co-morbidity index (2.0 versus 3.0, p = 0.01) and higher temperature (38.7 C versus 38.2 C, p = 0.004) than controls. There was no significant association between receipt of tocilizumab and the rate of extubation within fourteen days (44.4 percent versus 34.2 percent;OR = 1.53, 95% C.I. 0.71 - 3.30), discharge from hospital (51.1 percent versus 40.0 percent;OR = 1.568, 95% C.I. 0.737 - 3.337), or mortality (31.1 percent versus 41.4 percent;OR = 0.639, 95% C.I. 0.290 - 1.4407) (Table 2). Patients who were administered tocilizumab within two days of intubation had increased likelihood of extubation within fourteen days compared to those who were treated later (OR = 3.50, 95% C.I. 1.01 - 12.18). There was no observed increased risk of secondary infection in patients given tocilizumab (28.9 versus 25.7, OR = 1.1736, 95% C.I. = 0.507 - 2.714). Conclusion: Tocilizumab was not associated with a significant improvement in rate of extubation, hospital discharge, or reduction in mortality in this retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are needed to determine whether earlier treatment may result in improved outcomes. (Table Presented).