Prevalence of Pneumonia Among Patients Who Died with COVID-19 Infection in Ancestral Versus Omicron Variant Eras.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is less severe than the ancestral strain, leading to the potential for deaths in patients infected with the virus but who die of other causes. This study evaluated the difference in rates of pneumonia among patients who died with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the ancestral vs Omicron eras. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who died within 30days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, from March 2020 through December 2022; variants were assigned based on the prevalent variant in the US at that time. We also obtained a control group from patients who died within 30days of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test in January 2022. The first CT after the test was reviewed in a blinded fashion and assigned a category from the RSNA Consensus Reporting Guidelines. The primary outcome was the difference in rates of positive (typical or indeterminate) COVID-19 findings in the ancestral vs Omicron eras. RESULTS: A total of 598 patients died during the ancestral era and 400 during the Omicron era, and 347 decedents comprised the control group. The rate of positive COVID-19 findings was 67/81 (83%) in the ancestral era and 43/81 (53%) in the Omicron era (P < .001), an absolute difference of 30% (95% CI 16%-43%). The rate of positive findings in the control group was 23/76 (30%). CONCLUSION: During the Omicron era, 30% fewer SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths were associated with COVID-19 pneumonia and were caused either by nonpulmonary effects of the infection or were unrelated to the infection.

Naloxone administration by law enforcement officers in New York State (2015-2020).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need for wide deployment of effective harm reduction strategies in preventing opioid overdose mortality. Placing naloxone in the hands of key responders, including law enforcement officers who are often first on the scene of a suspected overdose, is one such strategy. New York State (NYS) was one of the first states to implement a statewide law enforcement naloxone administration program. This article provides an overview of the law enforcement administration of naloxone in NYS between 2015 and 2020 and highlights key characteristics of over 9000 opioid overdose reversal events. METHODS: Data in naloxone usage report forms completed by police officers were compiled and analyzed. Data included 9133 naloxone administration reports by 5835 unique officers located in 60 counties across NYS. Descriptive statistics were used to examine attributes of the aided individuals, including differences between fatal and non-fatal incidents. Additional descriptive analyses were conducted for incidents in which law enforcement officers arrived first at the scene of suspected overdose. Comparisons were made to examine year-over-year trends in administration as naloxone formulations were changed. Quantitative analysis was supplemented by content analysis of officers' notes (n = 2192). RESULTS: In 85.9% of cases, law enforcement officers arrived at the scene of a suspected overdose prior to emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. These officers assessed the likelihood of an opioid overdose having occurred based on the aided person's breathing status and other information obtained on the scene. They administered an average of 2 doses of naloxone to aided individuals. In 36.8% of cases, they reported additional administration of naloxone by other responders including EMS, fire departments, and laypersons. Data indicated the aided survived the suspected overdose in 87.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate training, law enforcement personnel were able to recognize opioid overdoses and prevent fatalities by administering naloxone and carrying out time-sensitive medical interventions. These officers provided life-saving services to aided individuals alongside other responders including EMS, fire departments, and bystanders. Further expansion of law enforcement naloxone administration nationally and internationally could help decrease opioid overdose mortality.

Naloxone administration by law enforcement officers in New York State (2015–2020)

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the need for wide deployment of effective harm reduction strategies in preventing opioid overdose mortality. Placing naloxone in the hands of key responders, including law enforcement officers who are often first on the scene of a suspected overdose, is one such strategy. New York State (NYS) was one of the first states to implement a statewide law enforcement naloxone administration program. This article provides an overview of the law enforcement administration of naloxone in NYS between 2015 and 2020 and highlights key characteristics of over 9000 opioid overdose reversal events. Methods Data in naloxone usage report forms completed by police officers were compiled and analyzed. Data included 9133 naloxone administration reports by 5835 unique officers located in 60 counties across NYS. Descriptive statistics were used to examine attributes of the aided individuals, including differences between fatal and non-fatal incidents. Additional descriptive analyses were conducted for incidents in which law enforcement officers arrived first at the scene of suspected overdose. Comparisons were made to examine year-over-year trends in administration as naloxone formulations were changed. Quantitative analysis was supplemented by content analysis of officers’ notes (n = 2192). Results In 85.9% of cases, law enforcement officers arrived at the scene of a suspected overdose prior to emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. These officers assessed the likelihood of an opioid overdose having occurred based on the aided person’s breathing status and other information obtained on the scene. They administered an average of 2 doses of naloxone to aided individuals. In 36.8% of cases, they reported additional administration of naloxone by other responders including EMS, fire departments, and laypersons. Data indicated the aided survived the suspected overdose in 87.4% of cases. Conclusions With appropriate training, law enforcement personnel were able to recognize opioid overdoses and prevent fatalities by administering naloxone and carrying out time-sensitive medical interventions. These officers provided life-saving services to aided individuals alongside other responders including EMS, fire departments, and bystanders. Further expansion of law enforcement naloxone administration nationally and internationally could help decrease opioid overdose mortality.

Real-World Diagnostic Performance of RSNA Consensus Reporting Guidelines for Findings Related to COVID-19 on Chest CT.

This study evaluated the real-world diagnostic performance of Radiological Society of North America COVID-19 consensus reporting guidelines among 2618 chest CT reports from the author's health care network from April 2020 through March 2021; reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction served as the reference. Typical findings exhibited sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 91%, similar to performance reported in research settings. PPV of 52% was lower than previously reported, attributed to low COVID-19 prevalence. Accuracy improved from 84% in April 2020 to 92% in March 2021 (p = .03).

Radiation Recall Pneumonitis on FDG PET/CT Triggered by COVID-19 Vaccination.

ABSTRACT: A 67-year-old man with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma was initially treated with whole-brain radiotherapy for intracranial metastases, followed by chemotherapy and pembrolizumab. After completing 2 years of systemic therapy, the primary right lung lesion was biopsy-proven to have residual adenocarcinoma, which was then treated with radiation (6000 cGy in 15 fractions). Follow-up serial FDG PET/CT showed radiation fibrosis. Eighteen months after radiotherapy, the patient received 2 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. FDG PET/CT performed 4 days following his second vaccine dose showed FDG-avid multistation lymphadenopathy and radiation recall pneumonitis, likely vaccination-induced and mimicking recurrent disease. This resolved spontaneously without therapy.

Determinants of Chest X-Ray Sensitivity for COVID- 19: A Multi-Institutional Study in the United States.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and severity of chest x-rays (CXR) and chest CTs over time in confirmed COVID-19+ and COVID-19- patients and to evaluate determinants of false negatives. METHODS: In a retrospective multi-institutional study, 254 RT-PCR verified COVID-19+ patients with at least one CXR or chest CT were compared with 254 age- and gender-matched COVID-19- controls. CXR severity, sensitivity, and specificity were determined with respect to time after onset of symptoms; sensitivity and specificity for chest CTs without time stratification. Performance of serial CXRs against CTs was determined by comparing area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors related to false negative CXR. RESULTS: COVID-19+ CXR severity and sensitivity increased with time (from sensitivity of 55% at ≤2 days to 79% at >11 days; p<0.001 for trends of both severity and sensitivity) whereas CXR specificity decreased over time (from 83% to 70%, p=0.02). Serial CXR demonstrated increase in AUC (first CXR AUC=0.79, second CXR=0.87, p=0.02), and second CXR approached the accuracy of CT (AUC=0.92, p=0.11). COVID-19 sensitivity of first CXR, second CXR, and CT was 73%, 83%, and 88%, whereas specificity was 80%, 73%, and 77%, respectively. Normal and mild severity CXR findings were the largest factor behind false-negative CXRs (40% normal and 87% combined normal/mild). Young age and African-American ethnicity increased false negative rates. CONCLUSION: CXR sensitivity in COVID-19 detection increases with time, and serial CXRs of COVID-19+ patients has accuracy approaching that of chest CT.

In situ detection of SARS-CoV-2 in lungs and airways of patients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 has led to a global public health crisis. In elderly individuals and those with comorbidities, COVID-19 is associated with high mortality, frequently caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome. We examine in situ expression of SARS-CoV-2 in airways and lung obtained at autopsy of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Seven autopsy cases (male, N = 5; female, N = 2) with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a median age of 66 years (range, 50-77 years) were evaluated using a rabbit polyclonal antibody against SARS Nucleocapsid protein in correlation with clinical parameters. The median time from symptom onset to death was 9 days (range, 6-31 days), from hospitalization 7 days (range, 1-21 days), from positive RT-PCR 7 days (range, 0-18 days), and from intensive care unit admission defining onset of respiratory failure 3 days (range, 1-18 days). Chest imaging identified diffuse airspace disease in all patients corresponding to acute and (N = 5) or organizing (N = 2) diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) on histologic examination. Among five patients with acute-phase DAD (≤7 days from onset of respiratory failure), SARS-CoV-2 was detected in pulmonary pneumocytes and ciliated airway cells (N = 5), and in upper airway epithelium (N = 2). In two patients with organizing DAD (>14 days from onset of respiratory failure), no virus was detected in lungs or airways. No endothelial cell infection was observed. The findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection of epithelial cells in lungs and airways of patients with COVID-19 who developed respiratory failure can be detected during the acute phase of lung injury and is absent in the organizing phase.

Radiologist Reporting and Operational Management for Patients With Suspected COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the adoption and outcomes of locally designed reporting guidelines for patients with possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A departmental guideline was developed for radiologists that specified reporting terminology and required communication for patients with imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19, on the basis of patient test status and imaging indication. In this retrospective study, radiology reports completed from March 1, 2020, to May 3, 2020, that mentioned COVID-19 were reviewed. Reports were divided into patients with known COVID-19, patients with "suspected" COVID-19 (having an order indication of respiratory or infectious signs or symptoms), and "unsuspected patients" (other order indications, eg, trauma or non-chest pain). The primary outcome was the percentage of COVID-19 reports using recommended terminology; the secondary outcome was percentages of suspected and unsuspected patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Relationships between categorical variables were assessed using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Among 77,400 total reports, 1,083 suggested COVID-19 on the basis of imaging findings; 774 of COVID-19 reports (71%) used recommended terminology. Of 574 patients without known COVID-19 at the time of interpretation, 345 (60%) were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19, including 61% (315 of 516) of suspected and 52% (30 of 58) of unsuspected patients. Nearly all unsuspected patients (46 of 58) were identified on CT. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists rapidly adopted recommended reporting terminology for patients with suspected COVID-19. The majority of patients for whom radiologists raised concern for COVID-19 were subsequently diagnosed with the disease, including the majority of clinically unsuspected patients. Using unambiguous terminology and timely notification about previously unsuspected patients will become increasingly critical to facilitate COVID-19 testing and contact tracing as states begin to lift restrictions.

Chest CT and Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): A Critical Review of the Literature to Date.

OBJECTIVE. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Studies in the radiology literature have suggested that CT might be sufficiently sensitive and specific in diagnosing COVID-19 when used in lieu of a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test; however, this suggestion runs counter to current society guidelines. The purpose of this article is to critically review some of the most frequently cited studies on the use of CT for detecting COVID-19. CONCLUSION. To date, the radiology literature on COVID-19 has consisted of limited retrospective studies that do not substantiate the use of CT as a diagnostic test for COVID-19.