COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

Evolution of Care and Outcomes Across Surges in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unfolded in distinct surges. Understanding how surges differ may reveal important insights into the evolution of the pandemic and improve patient care. METHODS: We leveraged the Michigan Medicine COVID-19 Cohort, a prospective observational study at an academic tertiary medical center that systematically enrolled 2309 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19, comprising 5 distinct surges. RESULTS: As the pandemic evolved, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 tended to have a lower burden of comorbidities and a lower inflammatory burden as measured by admission levels of C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, and D-dimer. Use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin decreased substantially after Surge 1, while use of corticosteroids and remdesivir markedly increased (P < .001 for all). In-hospital mortality significantly decreased from 18.3% in Surge 1 to 5.3% in Surge 5 (P < .001). The need for mechanical ventilation significantly decreased from 42.5% in Surge 1 to 7.0% in Surge 5 (P < .001), while the need for renal replacement therapy decreased from 14.4% in Surge 1 to 2.3% in Surge 5 (P < .001). Differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and inflammatory markers accounted only partially for the differences in outcomes between surges. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved significantly with respect to hospitalized patient populations and therapeutic approaches, and clinical outcomes have substantially improved. Hospitalization after the first surge was independently associated with improved outcomes, even after controlling for relevant clinical covariates.

Site-level variability in the processes of care and outcomes over time among patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury: Insights from the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

Background: Elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels in patients with COVID-19 has been associated with worse outcomes. Guidelines on best practices of those patients remain uncertain. Methods: We included patients with COVID-19 and cTn above the assay-specific upper limit of normal (ULN) enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 registry between March 2020-January 2021. Site-level variability in invasive coronary angiography, LVEF assessment, ICU utilization, and inpatient mortality were determined by calculating adjusted median odds ratio (MOR) using hierarchical logistic regression models. Temporal trends were assessed with Cochran-Armitage trend test. Results: Among 32,636 patients, we included 6234 (19.4 %) with cTn above ULN (age 68.7 ± 16.0 years, 56.5 % male, 51.5 % Caucasian), of whom 1365 (21.6 %) had ≥5-fold elevations. Across 55 sites, the median rate of invasive coronary angiography was 0.1 % with adjusted MOR 1.5(1.0,2.3), median LVEF assessment was 25.5 %, MOR 3.0(2.2,3.9), ICU utilization was 41.7 %, MOR 2.2(1.8,2.6), and mortality was 20.9 %, MOR 1.7(1.5,2.0). Over time, we noted a significant increase in invasive coronary angiography (p-trend = 0.001), and LVEF assessment (p-trend<0.001), and reduction in mortality (p-trend<0.001), without significant change in ICU admissions (p-trend = 0.08). Similar variability and temporal trends were seen among patients with ≥5-fold cTn elevation. Conclusions: The use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury was very low during the early pandemic. We found moderate institutional variability in processes of care with an uptrend in invasive catheterization and LVEF assessment, and downtrend in mortality. Comparative effectiveness studies are needed to examine whether variability in care is associated with differences in outcomes.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against omicron (B.1.1.529) variant infection and hospitalisation in patients taking immunosuppressive medications: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: There is a scarcity of research regarding the effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressant medications, and no data are published to date pertaining to their effectiveness against omicron (B.1.1.529) variant SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation. We aimed to assess the relationship between immunosuppressive medications, mRNA vaccination, omicron infection, and severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, hospitalisation, ICU admission, death). Methods: We did a retrospective cohort study and included vaccinated and unvaccinated people aged 18 years or older in the Michigan Medicine health-care system, USA, during the omicron-dominant period of the pandemic (Dec 16, 2021-March 4, 2022). We collected data from electronic health records (demographics, diagnoses, medications) combined with immunisation data from the Michigan State Registry to determine vaccination status, and we collected COVID-19-related hospitalisation data by chart review. We used a Cox proportional hazards model based on calendar time to assess the effectiveness of the mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines in people taking immunosuppressive medications (conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs], biologic DMARDs, or glucocorticoids within the past 3 months), while controlling for participant characteristics. Using the same model, we assessed the effect of different classes of medication such as immunosuppressive DMARDs, immunomodulatory DMARDs, and glucocorticoids on SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation due to COVID-19. All analyses were done using complete cases after removing participants with missing covariates. Findings: 209 492 people were identified in Michigan Medicine, including 165 913 who were vaccinated and 43 579 who were unvaccinated. 41 078 people were excluded because they were younger than 18 years, partially vaccinated, had received a vaccine other than the two vaccines studied, or had incomplete covariate data. 168 414 people were included in the analysis; 97 935 (58%) were women, 70 479 (42%) were men, and 129 816 (77%) were White. 5609 (3%) people were taking immunosuppressive medications. In patients receiving immunosuppressants, three doses of BNT162b2 had a vaccine effectiveness of 50% (95% CI 31-64; p<0·0001) and three doses of mRNA-1273 had a vaccine effectiveness of 60% (42-73; p<0·0001) against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three doses of either vaccine had an effectiveness of 87% (95% CI 73-93; p<0·0001) against hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Receipt of immunosuppressive DMARDs (hazard ratio 2·32, 95% CI 1·23-4·38; p=0·0097) or glucocorticoids (2·93, 1·77-4·86; p<0·0001) and a history of organ or bone marrow transplantation (3·52, 2·01-6·16; p<0·0001) were associated with increased risk of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 compared with those who had not received immunosuppressive medications or transplant. Interpretation: People taking immunosuppressive DMARDs or glucocorticoids are at substantially higher risk of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 than the general population. However, the mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines remain effective within this group, and it is important that patients taking these medications remain up to date with vaccinations to mitigate their risk. Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

Relationship Between Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease and Death and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD) is perceived as a risk factor for poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. We sought to determine whether CVD is associated with in-hospital death and cardiovascular events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This study used data from a multicenter cohort of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units at 68 centers across the United States from March 1 to July 1, 2020. The primary exposure was CVD, defined as preexisting coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or atrial fibrillation/flutter. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission defined as a troponin I or T level above the 99th percentile upper reference limit of normal was a secondary exposure. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular events (cardiac arrest, new-onset arrhythmias, new-onset heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, or stroke) within 14 days. RESULTS: Among 5133 patients (3231 male [62.9%]; mean age 61 years [SD, 15]), 1174 (22.9%) had preexisting CVD. A total of 1178 (34.6%) died, and 920 (17.9%) had a cardiovascular event. After adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, history of smoking, and comorbidities, preexisting CVD was associated with a 1.15 (95% CI, 0.98-1.34) higher odds of death. No independent association was observed between preexisting CVD and cardiovascular events. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission was associated with higher odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.61-2.31]) and cardiovascular events (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.47-2.24]), regardless of the presence of CVD. CONCLUSIONS: CVD risk factors, rather than CVD itself, were the major contributors to outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. The occurrence of myocardial injury, regardless of CVD, and its association with outcomes suggests it is likely due to multiorgan injury related to acute inflammation rather than exacerbation of preexisting CVD. REGISTRATION: NCT04343898; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343898.

Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor and Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) contributes significantly to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The urokinase receptor system is involved in the regulation of coagulation. Levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) reflect hyperinflammation and are strongly predictive of outcomes in COVID-19. Whether suPAR levels identify patients with COVID-19 at risk for VTE is unclear. Methods and Results We leveraged a multinational observational study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with suPAR and D-dimer levels measured on admission. In 1960 patients (mean age, 58 years; 57% men; 20% Black race), we assessed the association between suPAR and incident VTE (defined as pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) using logistic regression and Fine-Gray modeling, accounting for the competing risk of death. VTE occurred in 163 (8%) patients and was associated with higher suPAR and D-dimer levels. There was a positive association between suPAR and D-dimer (ß=7.34; P=0.002). Adjusted for clinical covariables, including D-dimer, the odds of VTE were 168% higher comparing the third with first suPAR tertiles (adjusted odds ratio, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.51-4.75]; P<0.001). Findings were consistent when stratified by D-dimer levels and in survival analysis accounting for death as a competing risk. On the basis of predicted probabilities from random forest, a decision tree found the combined D-dimer <1 mg/L and suPAR <11 ng/mL cutoffs, identifying 41% of patients with only 3.6% VTE probability. Conclusions Higher suPAR was associated with incident VTE independently of D-dimer in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Combining suPAR and D-dimer identified patients at low VTE risk. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04818866.

Comparative Effectiveness of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines Against the Delta Variant.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data regarding how the Delta variant of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines at preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of the three vaccines during the pre- and post-Delta variant period (before and after 1 July 2021) in a large cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system. We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) using 2 analyses: an inverse propensity weighted (IPW) Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis based on time from vaccination, and a Cox model based on calendar time with vaccination as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Compared to Ad26.COV2.S recipients, the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the post-Delta variant period was lower for BNT162b2 recipients (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [.14-.98]; P = .05) and mRNA-1273 recipients (HR = 0.21; 95% CI: [.07-.64]; P = .006). Recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than Ad26.COV2.S recipients (HR = 0.6; 95% CI: [.43-.83]; P = .003) and BNT162b2 recipients (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: [.54-.76]; P < .001). After 1 July, efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection declined for Ad26.COV2.S recipients (VE = 76% before; VE = 49% after; P = .02), BNT162b2 recipients (VE = 87% before; VE = 52% after; P < .001), and mRNA-1273 recipients (VE = 92% before; VE = 70% after; P < .001). Waning immunity and the Delta variant contributed independently and significantly to this decline. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a substantial decline in effectiveness, the approved COVID-19 vaccines remain effective against infection and hospitalization due to the Delta variant. The mRNA-based vaccines are more effective than the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

Molecular consequences of SARS-CoV-2 liver tropism.

Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 have gained attention due to their links to clinical outcomes and their potential long-term sequelae1. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) displays tropism towards several organs, including the heart and kidney. Whether it also directly affects the liver has been debated2,3. Here we provide clinical, histopathological, molecular and bioinformatic evidence for the hepatic tropism of SARS-CoV-2. We find that liver injury, indicated by a high frequency of abnormal liver function tests, is a common clinical feature of COVID-19 in two independent cohorts of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Using autopsy samples obtained from a third patient cohort, we provide multiple levels of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 liver tropism, including viral RNA detection in 69% of autopsy liver specimens, and successful isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from liver tissue postmortem. Furthermore, we identify transcription-, proteomic- and transcription factor-based activity profiles in hepatic autopsy samples, revealing similarities to the signatures associated with multiple other viral infections of the human liver. Together, we provide a comprehensive multimodal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 liver tropism, which increases our understanding of the molecular consequences of severe COVID-19 and could be useful for the identification of organ-specific pharmacological targets.

Efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressants.

OBJECTIVES: We intended to assess the effectiveness of all three US Food and Drug Administration approved COVID-19 vaccines at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in a large cohort of individuals on immunosuppressants for a diverse range of conditions. METHODS: We studied the effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines among individuals who take immunosuppressants (including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids) by comparing vaccinated (n=97688) and unvaccinated (n=42094) individuals in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system from 1 January to 7 December 2021, using Cox proportional hazards modelling with time-varying covariates. RESULTS: Among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, taking immunosuppressants increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted HR (aHR)=2.17, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.79 for fully vaccinated and aHR=1.40, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.83 for unvaccinated). Among individuals taking immunosuppressants, we found: (1) vaccination reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR=0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.78); (2) the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=2046, aHR=0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91 for BNT162b2; n=2064, aHR=0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82 for mRNA-1273); (3) with a smaller sample size (n=173), Ad26.COV2.S vaccine protection did not reach statistical significance (aHR=0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.30, p=0.17); and (4) receiving a booster dose reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR=0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines are effective in individuals who take immunosuppressants. However, individuals who are vaccinated but on immunosuppressants are still at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation than the broader vaccinated population. Booster doses are effective and crucially important for individuals on immunosuppressants.

Inflammation, Hyperglycemia, and Adverse Outcomes in Individuals With Diabetes Mellitus Hospitalized for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for reasons that are unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We leveraged the International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19 (ISIC), a multicenter observational study of 2,044 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, to characterize the impact of DM on in-hospital outcomes and assess the contribution of inflammation and hyperglycemia to the risk attributed to DM. We measured biomarkers of inflammation collected at hospital admission and collected glucose levels and insulin data throughout hospitalization. The primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: Among participants (mean age 60 years, 58.2% males), those with DM (n = 686, 33.5%) had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (37.8% vs. 28.6%) and higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers than those without DM. Among biomarkers, DM was only associated with higher soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels in multivariable analysis. Adjusting for suPAR levels abrogated the association between DM and the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.23 [95% CI 0.78, 1.37]). In mediation analysis, we estimated the proportion of the effect of DM on the primary outcome mediated by suPAR at 84.2%. Hyperglycemia and higher insulin doses were independent predictors of the primary outcome, with effect sizes unaffected by adjusting for suPAR levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the association between DM and outcomes in COVID-19 is largely mediated by hyperinflammation as assessed by suPAR levels, while the impact of hyperglycemia is independent of inflammation.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers, and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Background Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) is thought to affect COVID-19 through modulating levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV2. We sought to assess the association between ACEi/ARB, biomarkers of inflammation, and outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods and Results We leveraged the ISIC (International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19), identified patients admitted for symptomatic COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and June 1, 2021 for COVID-19, and examined the association between in-hospital ACEi/ARB use and all-cause death, need for ventilation, and need for dialysis. We estimated the causal effect of ACEi/ARB on the composite outcomes using marginal structural models accounting for serial blood pressure and serum creatinine measures. Of 2044 patients in ISIC, 1686 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 398 (23.6%) patients who were previously on ACEi/ARB received at least 1 dose during their hospitalization for COVID-19. There were 215 deaths, 407 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and 124 patients who required dialysis during their hospitalization. Prior ACEi/ARB use was associated with lower levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and C-reactive protein. In multivariable analysis, in-hospital ACEi/ARB use was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI [0.36-0.65]). Conclusions In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, ACEi/ARB use was associated with lower levels of inflammation and lower risk of in-hospital outcomes. Clinical trials will define the role of ACEi/ARB in the treatment of COVID-19. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04818866.

Differences in Inflammation, Treatment, and Outcomes Between Black and Non-Black Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Racial disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes have been described. We sought to determine whether differences in inflammatory markers, use of COVID-19 therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, and in-hospital outcomes contribute to racial disparities between Black and non-Black patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We leveraged a prospective cohort study that enrolled 1325 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19, of whom 341 (25.7%) were Black. We measured biomarkers of inflammation and collected data on the use COVID-19-directed therapies, enrollment in COVID-19 clinical trials, mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, and need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients had a higher prevalence of COVID-19 risk factors including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus and were more likely to require renal replacement therapy (15.8% vs 7.1%, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (37.2% vs 26.6%, P < .001) during their hospitalization. Mortality was similar between both groups (15.5% for Blacks vs 14.0% for non-Blacks, P = .49). Black patients were less likely to receive corticosteroids (44.9% vs 63.8%, P< .001) or remdesivir (23.8% vs 57.8%, P < .001) and were less likely to be enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials (15.3% vs 28.2%, P < .001). In adjusted analyses, Black race was associated with lower levels of C-reactive protein and soluble urokinase receptor and higher odds of death, mechanical ventilation, and renal replacement therapy. Differences in outcomes were not significant after adjusting for use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences in outcomes of patients with COVID-19 may be related to differences in inflammatory response and differential use of therapies.

Machine Learning Prediction of Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have variable mortality. Risk scores could improve care and be used for prognostic enrichment in trials. We aimed to compare machine learning algorithms and develop a simple tool for predicting 28-day mortality in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: This was an observational study of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day inhospital mortality. Machine learning models and a simple tool were derived using variables from the first 48 hours of ICU admission and validated externally in independent sites and temporally with more recent admissions. Models were compared with a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration. SETTING: Sixty-eight U.S. ICUs. PATIENTS: Adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 ICUs in the United States between March 4, 2020, and June 29, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study included 5,075 patients, 1,846 (36.4%) of whom died by day 28. eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.81) and was well-calibrated, while k-nearest neighbors were the lowest performing machine learning algorithm (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.69). Findings were similar with temporal validation. The simple tool, which was created using the most important features from the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model, had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.78) than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69), National Early Warning Score (0.60), and CURB-65 (0.65; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Age, number of ICU beds, creatinine, lactate, arterial pH, and Pao2/Fio2 ratio were the most important predictors in the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model. CONCLUSIONS: eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest discrimination overall, and our simple tool had higher discrimination than a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 on external validation. These models could be used to improve triage decisions and clinical trial enrichment.

Circulating Osteopontin Levels and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the result of a hyper-inflammatory reaction to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The biomarkers of inflammation have been used to risk-stratify patients with COVID-19. Osteopontin (OPN) is an integrin-binding glyco-phosphoprotein involved in the modulation of leukocyte activation; its levels are associated with worse outcomes in patients with sepsis. Whether OPN levels predict outcomes in COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: We measured OPN levels in serum of 341 hospitalized COVID-19 patients collected within 48 h from admission. We characterized the determinants of OPN levels and examined their association with in-hospital outcomes; notably death, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and as a composite outcome. The risk discrimination ability of OPN was compared with other inflammatory biomarkers. RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 (mean age 60, 61.9% male, 27.0% blacks) had significantly higher levels of serum OPN compared to healthy volunteers (96.63 vs. 16.56 ng/mL, p < 0.001). Overall, 104 patients required mechanical ventilation, 35 needed dialysis, and 53 died during their hospitalization. In multivariable analyses, OPN levels ≥140.66 ng/mL (third tertile) were associated with a 3.5 × (95%CI 1.44-8.27) increase in the odds of death, and 4.9 × (95%CI 2.48-9.80) increase in the odds of requiring mechanical ventilation. There was no association between OPN and need for RRT. Finally, OPN levels in the upper tertile turned out as an independent prognostic factor of event-free survival with respect to the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: Higher OPN levels are associated with increased odds of death and mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, however, their utility in triage is questionable.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive and Non-Intensive Care Units: Insights From the AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry.

Background Limited information is available regarding in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID-19. Methods and Results We leveraged the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease (AHA COVID-19 CVD) Registry to conduct a cohort study of adults hospitalized for COVID-19. IHCA was defined as those with documentation of cardiac arrest requiring medication or electrical shock for resuscitation. Mixed effects models with random intercepts were used to identify independent predictors of IHCA and mortality while accounting for clustering at the hospital level. The study cohort included 8518 patients (6080 not in the intensive care unit [ICU]) with mean age of 61.5 years (SD 17.5). IHCA occurred in 509 (5.9%) patients overall with 375 (73.7%) in the ICU and 134 (26.3%) patients not in the ICU. The majority of patients at the time of ICHA were not in a shockable rhythm (76.5%). Independent predictors of IHCA included older age, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; CI, 1.4-2.4; P<0.001), and non-Hispanic Black race (OR, 1.5; CI, 1.1-1.9; P=0.004). Other predictors included oxygen use on admission, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on admission, and hypertension. Overall, 35 (6.9%) patients with IHCA survived to discharge, with 9.1% for ICU and 0.7% for non-ICU patients. Conclusions Older age, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity are independent predictors of IHCA in patients with COVID-19. Although the incidence is much lower than in ICU patients, approximately one-quarter of IHCA events in patients with COVID-19 occur in non-ICU settings, with the latter having a substantially lower survival to discharge rate.

Impact of cancer and cardiovascular disease on in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 patients: results from the american heart association COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry.

BACKGROUND: While pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to be associated with poor outcomes in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), data on patients with CVD and concomitant cancer is limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of underlying CVD and CVD risk factors with cancer history on in-hospital mortality in those with COVID-19. METHODS: Data from symptomatic adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 86 hospitals in the US enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 CVD Registry was analyzed. The primary exposure was cancer history. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for demographics, CVD risk factors, and CVD. Interaction between history of cancer with concomitant CVD and CVD risk factors were tested. RESULTS: Among 8222 patients, 892 (10.8%) had a history of cancer and 1501 (18.3%) died. Cancer history had significant interaction with CVD risk factors of age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, but not underlying CVD itself. History of cancer was significantly associated with increased in-hospital death (among average age and BMI patients, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-6.24; p < 0.0001 in those with a smoking history and aOR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.01-1.76; p = 0.04 in non-smokers). Among the cancer subgroup, prior use of chemotherapy within 2 weeks of admission was associated with in-hospital death (aOR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.05-2.80; p = 0.03). Underlying CVD demonstrated a numerical but statistically nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality (aOR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.99-1.41; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, cancer history was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Notably, among cancer patients, recent use of chemotherapy, but not underlying CVD itself, was associated with worse survival. These findings have important implications in cancer therapy considerations and vaccine distribution in cancer patients with and without underlying CVD and CVD risk factors.

Prone Positioning and Survival in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVES: Therapies for patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently needed. Early implementation of prone positioning ventilation improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but studies examining the effect of proning on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are lacking. Our objective was to estimate the effect of early proning initiation on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Data were derived from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 U.S. hospitals. Using these data, we emulated a target trial of prone positioning ventilation by categorizing mechanically ventilated hypoxemic (ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg) patients as having been initiated on proning or not within 2 days of ICU admission. We fit an inverse probability-weighted Cox model to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for early proning versus no early proning. Patients were followed until death, hospital discharge, or end of follow-up. SETTING: ICUs at 68 U.S. sites. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 less than or equal to 200 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,338 eligible patients, 702 (30.0%) were proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission. After inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity of illness characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A total of 1,017 (43.5%) of the 2,338 patients were discharged alive, 1,101 (47.1%) died, and 220 (9.4%) were still hospitalized at last follow-up. Patients proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission had a lower adjusted risk of death compared with nonproned patients (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was lower in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 treated with early proning compared with patients whose treatment did not include early proning.

Impact of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease on In-Hospital Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients: Results From the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

Background: While pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to be associated with poor outcomes in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), data on patients with CVD and concomitant cancer is limited. Evaluate the effect of underlying CVD and CVD risk factors with cancer history on in-hospital mortality in those with COVID-19. Methods: Data from symptomatic adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 86 hospitals in the US enrolled in the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry was analyzed. The primary exposure was cancer history. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for demographics, CVD risk factors, and CVD. Interaction between history of cancer with concomitant CVD and CVD risk factors were tested. Results: Among 8222 patients, 892 (10.8%) had a history of cancer and 1501 (18.3%) died. Cancer history had significant interaction with CVD risk factors of age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, but not underlying CVD itself. History of cancer was significantly associated with increased in-hospital death (among average age and BMI patients, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-6.24; p<0.0001 in those with a smoking history and aOR=1.33, 95%CI: 1.01 - 1.76; p=0.04 in non-smokers). Among the cancer subgroup, prior use of chemotherapy within 2 weeks of admission was associated with in-hospital death (aOR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.05-2.80; p=0.03). Underlying CVD demonstrated a numerical but statistically nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality (aOR=1.18, 95% CI: 0.99 - 1.41; p=0.07). Conclusion: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, cancer history was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Notably, among cancer patients, recent use of chemotherapy, but not underlying CVD itself, was associated with worse survival. These findings have important implications in cancer therapy considerations and vaccine distribution in cancer patients with and without underlying CVD and CVD risk factors.

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.