N95 vs Half-face Respirator Wear in Surgical Trainees: Physiologic and Psychological Effects of Prolonged Use.

OBJECTIVES: As specialists of the upper airway, otolaryngologists are at high risk for COVID-19 transmission. N95 and half-face respirator (HFR) masks are commonly worn, each with advantages in functionality and comfort. In this study, physiologic and psychological parameters of prolonged N95 vs HFR wear were compared. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective crossover cohort study. SETTING: Single academic tertiary care hospital. METHODS: A prospective crossover cohort study was performed. Healthy otolaryngology trainees and medical students (N = 23) participated and wore N95 and HFR masks continuously for 3 hours each on separate days. Various measures were analyzed: vitals, spirometry variables, scores on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and HIT-6 (Headache Impact Test-6), distress, and "difficulty being understood." RESULTS: The average age was 26.3 years (SD, 3.42). There were no significant differences in vital signs and spirometry variables between N95 and HFR wear. N95 wear was associated with decreases in oxygen saturation of approximately 1.09% more than with HFRs (95% CI, 0.105-2.077). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores increased more with HFR wear when compared with mean changes with N95 wear (95% CI, 1.350-8.741). There were no significant differences in HIT-6 scores or distress levels between masks. The proportions of participants reporting difficulty being understood was significantly higher with HFRs. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen saturation decreases with prolonged N95 wear, but anxiety and difficulty being understood are greater with HFR wear. Although HFRs have less resistance to gas exchange, N95 respirators may produce less anxiety and distress in clinical situations. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical significance of these differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score across Patients with and without COVID-19 Infection.

Rationale: Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores are commonly used in crisis standards of care policies to assist in resource allocation. The relative predictive value of SOFA by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection status and among racial and ethnic subgroups within patients infected with COVID-19 is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy and calibration of SOFA in predicting hospital mortality by COVID-19 infection status and across racial and ethnic subgroups. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult admissions to the University of Miami Hospital and Clinics inpatient wards (July 1, 2020-April 1, 2021). We primarily considered maximum SOFA within 48 hours of hospitalization. We assessed accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and created calibration belts. Considered subgroups were defined by COVID-19 infection status (by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction testing) and prevalent racial and ethnic minorities. Comparisons across subgroups were made with DeLong testing for discriminative accuracy and visualization of calibration belts. Results: Our primary cohort consisted of 20,045 hospitalizations, of which 1,894 (9.5%) were COVID-19 positive. SOFA was similarly accurate for COVID-19-positive (AUROC, 0.835) and COVID-19-negative (AUROC, 0.810; P = 0.15) admissions but was slightly better calibrated in patients who were positive for COVID-19. For those with critical illness, maximum SOFA score accuracy at critical illness onset also did not differ by COVID-19 status (AUROC, COVID-19 positive vs. negative: intensive care unit admissions, 0.751 vs. 0.775; P = 0.46; mechanically ventilated, 0.713 vs. 0.792, P = 0.13), and calibration was again better for patients positive for COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, SOFA accuracy was similar between the non-Hispanic White population (AUROC, 0.894) and racial and ethnic minorities (Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.824 [P vs. non-Hispanic White = 0.05]; non-Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.800 [P = 0.12]; Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.948 [P = 0.31]). This similar accuracy was also found for those without COVID-19 (non-Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.829; Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.811 [P = 0.37]; Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.828 [P = 0.97]; non-Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.867 [P = 0.46]). SOFA was well calibrated for all racial and ethnic groups with COVID-19 but estimated mortality more variably and performed less well across races and ethnicities without COVID-19. Conclusions: SOFA accuracy does not differ by COVID-19 status and is similar among racial and ethnic groups both with and without COVID-19. Calibration is better for COVID-19-infected patients and, among those without COVID-19, varies by race and ethnicity.

Assessment of Disparities Associated With a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution's resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

Effects of Tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Due to the lack of proven therapies, we evaluated the effects of early administration of tocilizumab for COVID-19. By inhibition of the IL-6 receptor, tocilizumab may help to mitigate the hyperinflammatory response associated with progressive respiratory failure from SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was conducted on hospitalized adults who received intravenous tocilizumab for COVID-19 between March 23, 2020 and April 10, 2020. RESULTS: Most patients were male (66.7%), Hispanic (63.3%) or Black (23.3%), with a median age of 54 years. Tocilizumab was administered at a median of 8 days (range 1-21) after initial symptoms and 2 days (range 0-12) after hospital admission. Within 30 days from receiving tocilizumab, 36 patients (60.0%) demonstrated clinical improvement, 9 (15.0%) died, 33 (55.0%) were discharged alive, and 18 (30.0%) remained hospitalized. Successful extubation occurred in 13 out of 29 patients (44.8%). Infectious complications occurred in 16 patients (26.7%) at a median of 10.5 days. After tocilizumab was administered, there was a slight increase in PaO2/FiO2 and an initial reduction in CRP, but this effect was not sustained beyond day 10. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of patients demonstrated clinical improvement and were successfully discharged alive from the hospital after receiving tocilizumab. We observed a rebound effect with CRP, which may suggest the need for higher or subsequent doses to adequately manage cytokine storm. Based on our findings, we believe that tocilizumab may have a role in the early treatment of COVID-19, however larger randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm this.

Lack of tocilizumab effect on mortality in COVID19 patients.

Off-label tocilizumab use in COVID-19 patients reflects concern for cytokine release syndrome. Comparison of matched COVID-19 pneumonia patients found elevated IL-6 levels correlated with mortality that did not change with tocilizumab administration. Correlating mortality with increased IL-6 doesn't imply causality however lack of improvement by tocilizumab requires further clinical trial alterations.

Development of a Standardized Data Collection Tool for Evaluation and Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 ) is responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that had not been previously described and for which clinicians need to rapidly adapt their daily practice. The novelty of SARS-CoV-2 produced significant gaps in harmonization of definitions, data collection, and outcome reporting to identify patients who would benefit from potential interventions. METHODS: We describe a multicenter collaboration to develop a comprehensive data collection tool for the evaluation and management of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The proposed tool was developed by a multidisciplinary working group of infectious disease physicians, intensivists, and infectious diseases/antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists. The working group regularly reviewed literature to select important patient characteristics, diagnostics, and outcomes for inclusion. The data collection tool consisted of spreadsheets developed to collect data from the electronic medical record and track the clinical course after treatments. RESULTS: Data collection focused on demographics and exposure epidemiology, prior medical history and medications, signs and symptoms, diagnostic test results, interventions, clinical outcomes, and complications. During the pilot validation phase, there was <10% missing data for most domains and components. Team members noted improved efficiency and decision making by using the tool during interdisciplinary rounds. CONCLUSIONS: We present the development of a COVID-19 data collection tool and propose its use to effectively assemble harmonized data of hospitalized individuals with COVID-19. This tool can be used by clinicians, researchers, and quality improvement healthcare teams. It has the potential to facilitate interdisciplinary rounds, provide comparisons across different hospitalized populations, and adapt to emerging challenges posed by the pandemic.

A presentation of E-Cigarette vaping associated lung injury (EVALI) caused by THC-Containing electronic smoking device.

Several cases have recently been reported concerning the development of a syndrome of acute lung injury associated with the use of electronic cigarettes, leading to respiratory failure and several deaths. We present a case of a young veteran who presented with e-cigarette vaping associated lung injury (EVALI) to a primary care clinic and who required subsequent inpatient admission and home oxygen therapy after discharge. The patient afterwards improved after a three-month course of steroids and cessation of THC-containing electronic cigarettes, consistent with previously reported cases. Furthermore, evidence on bronchoscopy and biopsy demonstrated intracellular lipid droplets in the patient's macrophages. This outpatient case of EVALI prompts primary care providers to raise suspicion of this condition, and enquire about the use of e-cigarettes, particularly THC-containing vaping products. Furthermore, in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, similar clinical and radiographic presentations between COVID-19 and EVALI can be seen.

Lack of Tocilizumab effect on mortality in COVID19 patients (preprint)

Off-label tocilizumab use in COVID-19 patients reflects concern for cytokine release syndrome. Comparison of matched COVID-19 pneumonia patients found elevated IL-6 levels correlated with mortality that did not change with tocilizumab administration. Correlating mortality with increased IL-6 doesn’t imply causality however lack of improvement by tocilizumab requires clinical trial alterations.