SARS-CoV-2 and risk of psychiatric hospital admission and use of psychopharmaceuticals: A nationwide registry study of 4,585,083 adult Danish citizens.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the risk of admission- or medication-requiring psychiatric sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is limited to selected populations, short durations, and loss to follow-up. This study examined if SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased long-term risk of psychiatric admissions and de novo prescription of psychoactive medication in the general population of Denmark. METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) were assigned to either the control or SARS-CoV-2 group based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests between 1 January 2020 and 27 November 2021. Infected subjects were matched 1:5 to control subjects by propensity score. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated. Adjusted Cox regression was applied to the unmatched population with SARS-CoV-2 infection as a time-dependent covariate. Follow-up time was 12 months or until the end of the study. RESULTS: A total of 4,585,083 adults were included in the study. Approximately 342,084 had a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were matched 1:5 with 1,697,680 controls. The IRR for psychiatric admission was 0.79 in the matched population (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.85, p < 0.001). In the unmatched population, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for psychiatric admission were either below 1.00 or with a 95% CI lower limit of 1.01. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk of de novo prescription of psychoactive medication in both the matched (IRR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.11, p < 0.01) and unmatched population (HR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.28-1.34, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found a signal of increased use of psychoactive medication, specifically benzodiazepines, among SARS-CoV-2-positive persons, but the risk of psychiatric admissions did not increase.

Treatment with prophylactic oral anticoagulants and the risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients: a nationwide cohort study.

Background: Venous thromboembolism has been reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It remains unclear if premorbid use of prophylactic oral anticoagulation, for reasons other than COVID-19, protects against death in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this study was to estimate if the risk of all-cause mortality, hospital admission or intensive care unit (ICU) admission for individuals with verified SARS-CoV-2 was lower if patients used oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy prior to a positive COVID-19 status. Methods: Data were obtained using national health registries. Cohort entry was the day of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and individuals were followed for 14 days or until death or hospital admission. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard regressions and competing risk analyses were used to estimate the risk of all-cause mortality, hospital admission and ICU admission in OAC users compared with patients with no use of OAC. Results: In this nationwide cohort study a total of 244 522 individuals were included (median age 35 years (interquartile range 21-52); 124 095 (51%) female), among whom 3710 (1.5%) were OAC users. In the adjusted Cox regression cohort, there was no difference in risk of all-cause mortality in OAC versus non-OAC users. (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.99-1.30). Hospital admission risk (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20) was slightly increased in OAC users, and there was no difference between the groups regarding the risk of ICU admission (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74-1.24). Conclusions: In individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2, pre-existing treatment with OAC was not associated with prophylactic benefits in the prevention of hospital admission, ICU admissions or death. Prescription patterns should remain unchanged.

Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic letter system for increasing inFLUenza vaccine uptake (NUDGE-FLU): Study protocol for a nationwide randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Annual influenza vaccination is widely recommended in older adults and other high-risk groups including patients with cardiovascular disease. The real-world effectiveness of influenza vaccination is limited by suboptimal uptake and effective strategies for increasing vaccination rates are therefore needed. The purpose of this trial is to investigate whether behavioral nudges digitally delivered via the Danish nationwide mandatory governmental electronic letter system can increase influenza vaccination uptake among older adults. METHODS: The NUDGE-FLU trial is a randomized implementation trial randomizing all Danish citizens aged 65 years and above without an exemption from the Danish mandatory governmental electronic letter system to receive no digitally delivered behavioral nudge (usual care arm) or to receive one of 9 electronic letters (intervention arms) each leveraging different behavioral science strategies. The trial has randomized 964,870 participants with randomization clustered at the household level (n = 691,820 households). Intervention letters were delivered on September 16, 2022, and follow-up is currently ongoing. All trial data are captured using the nationwide Danish administrative health registries. The primary end point is the receipt of an influenza vaccine on or before January 1, 2023. The secondary end point is time to vaccination. Exploratory end points include clinical events such as hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia, cardiovascular events, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION: The nationwide randomized NUDGE-FLU trial is one of the largest implementation trials ever conducted and will provide important insights into effective communication strategies to maximize vaccination uptake among high-risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05542004, registered September 15, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05542004.

Lung Ultrasound Findings Associated With COVID-19 ARDS, ICU Admission, and All-Cause Mortality.

BACKGROUND: As lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a diagnostic tool in patients with COVID-19, we sought to investigate the association between LUS findings and the composite in-hospital outcome of ARDS incidence, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-center, observational study, adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled from non-ICU in-patient units. Subjects underwent an LUS evaluating a total of 8 zones. Images were analyzed off-line, blinded to clinical variables and outcomes. A LUS score was developed to integrate LUS findings: ≥ 3 B-lines corresponded to a score of 1, confluent B-lines to a score of 2, and subpleural or lobar consolidation to a score of 3. The total LUS score ranged from 0-24 per subject. RESULTS: Among 215 enrolled subjects, 168 with LUS data and no current signs of ARDS or ICU admission (mean age 59 y, 56% male) were included. One hundred thirty-six (81%) subjects had pathologic LUS findings in ≥ 1 zone (≥ 3 B-lines, confluent B-lines, or consolidations). Markers of disease severity at baseline were higher in subjects with the composite outcome (n = 31, 18%), including higher median C-reactive protein (90 mg/L vs 55, P < .001) and procalcitonin levels (0.35 µg/L vs 0.13, P = .033) and higher supplemental oxygen requirements (median 4 L/min vs 2, P = .001). However, LUS findings and score did not differ significantly between subjects with the composite outcome and those without, and were not associated with outcomes in unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic findings on LUS were common a median of 3 d after admission in this cohort of non-ICU hospitalized subjects with COVID-19 and did not differ among subjects who experienced the composite outcome of incident ARDS, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality compared to subjects who did not. These findings should be confirmed in future investigations. The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04377035).

Exclusion of older adults and immunocompromised individuals in influenza, pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccine trials before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Older adults and immunocompromised individulas are often excluded from vaccine trials. AIM: We hypothesised that during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the proportion of trials excluding these patients decreased. METHODS: Using the US Food and Drug Administration and and European Medicines Agency search engines, we identified all vaccines approved against pneumococcal disease, influenza (quadrivalent vaccines), and COVID-19 from 2011 to 2021. Study protocols were screened for direct and indirect age exclusion criteria and exclusion of immunocompromised individuals. In addition, we reviewed the studies with no explicit exclusion criteria and investigated the actual inclusion of those individuals. RESULTS: We identified 2024 trial records; 1702 were excluded (e.g., use of other vaccine or risk group); and 322 studies were eligible for our review. Among the pneumococcal and influenza vaccine trials (n = 193), 81 (42%) had an explicit direct age exclusion, and 150 (78%) had an indirect age-related exclusion. In total, 163 trials (84%) trials were likely to exclude older adults. Among the COVID-19 vaccine trials (n = 129), 33 (26%) had direct age exclusion and 82 (64%) had indirect age exclusion; in total, 85 (66%) trials were likely to exclude older adults. Therefore was a 18% decrease in the proportion of trials with age-related exclusion between 2011 and 2021 (only influenza and pneumococcal vaccine trials) and 2020-2021 (only COVID-19 vaccine trials) (p = 0.014). In a sub-analysis assessing observational and randomised trials, the decrease was 25% and 9%, respectively. Immunocompromised individuals were included in 87 (45%) of the pneumococcal and influenza vaccine trials compared with 54 (42%) of the COVID-19 vaccine trials (p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found a decrease in the exclusion of older adults from vaccine trials but no significant change in the inclusion of immunocompromised individulas.

Cardiac Characteristics of the First Two Waves of COVID-19 in Denmark and the Prognostic Value of Echocardiography: The ECHOVID-19 Study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has spread globally in waves, and Danish treatment guidelines have been updated following the first wave. We sought to investigate whether the prognostic values of echocardiographic parameters changed with updates in treatment guidelines and the emergence of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, 20E (EU1) and Alpha (B.1.1.7), and further to compare cardiac parameters between patients from the first and second wave. METHODS: A total of 305 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were prospectively included, 215 and 90 during the first and second wave, respectively. Treatment in the study was defined as treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, or both. Patients were assumed to be infected with the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant at the time of their hospitalisation. RESULTS: Mean age for the first vs. second wave was 68.7±13.6 vs. 69.7±15.8 years and 55% vs. 62% were male. Left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function was worse in patients hospitalised during the second wave (LV ejection fraction (LVEF) for first vs. second wave = 58.5±8.1% vs. 52.4±10.6%, p<0.001) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) = 16.4±4.3% vs. 14.2±4.3%, p<0.001). In univariable cox regressions, reduced LVEF (HR=1.07 per 1% decrease, p=0.002), GLS (HR=1.21 per 1% decrease, p<0.001), and TAPSE (HR=1.18 per 1mm decrease, p<0.001) were associated with covid-related mortality, but only GLS remained significant in fully adjusted analysis (HR=1.14, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Reduced GLS was associated with covid-related mortality independently of wave, treatment, and SARS-CoV-2 variant. LV function was significantly impaired in patients hospitalised during the second wave.

Readmissions, post-discharge mortality and sustained recovery among patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Many interventional in-patient COVID-19 trials assess primary outcomes through day 28 post-randomization. Since a proportion of patients experience protracted disease or relapse, such follow-up period may not fully capture the course of the disease, even when randomization occurs a few days after hospitalization. METHODS: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in Eastern Denmark from March 18, 2020 - January 12, 2021 we assessed: all-cause mortality, recovery and sustained recovery 90 days after admission, and readmission and all-cause mortality 90 days after discharge. Recovery was defined as hospital discharge and sustained recovery as recovery and alive without readmissions for 14 consecutive days. RESULTS: Among 3,386 patients included in the study 2,796 (82.6%) reached recovery and 2,600 (77.0%) achieved sustained recovery. Of those discharged from hospital, 556 (19.9%) were readmitted, and 289 (10.3%) died. Overall, the median time to recovery was 6 days (Interquartile range (IQR), 3-10), and 19 days (IQR, 11-33) among patients in intensive care in the first two days of admission. CONCLUSIONS: Post-discharge readmission and mortality rates were substantial. Therefore, sustained recovery should be favored to recovery outcomes in clinical COVID-19 trials. A 28-day follow-up period may be too short the critically ill.

Protocol for a 30-day randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority, controlled trial investigating the effects of discontinuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients with and without COVID-19: the RASCOVID-19 trial.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the virus SARS-CoV has spread rapidly and caused damage worldwide. Data suggest a major overrepresentation of hypertension and diabetes among patients experiencing severe courses of COVID-19 including COVID-19-related deaths. Many of these patients receive renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibiting therapy, and evidence suggests that treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) could attenuate SARS-CoV-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome, and ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been suggested to alleviate COVID-19 pulmonary manifestations. This randomised clinical trial will address whether RAS inhibiting therapy should be continued or discontinued in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial is a 30-day randomised parallel-group non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded mechanistic substudy. In the main trial, 215 patients treated with a RAS inhibitor will be included. The participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either discontinue or continue their RAS inhibiting therapy in addition to standard care. The patients are included during hospitalisation and followed for a period of 30 days. The primary end point is number of days alive and out of hospital within 14 days after recruitment. In a mechanistic substudy, 40 patients treated with RAS inhibition, who are not in hospital and not infected with COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to discontinue or continue their RAS inhibiting therapy with the primary end point of serum ACE2 activity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (identification no. H-20026484), the Danish Medicines Agency (identification no. 2020040883) and by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020-366). The results of this project will be compiled into one or more manuscripts for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020-001544-26; NCT04351581.

Myocardial Work in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Relation to Biomarkers, COVID-19 Severity, and All-Cause Mortality.

Background COVID-19 infection has been hypothesized to affect left ventricular function; however, the underlying mechanisms and the association to clinical outcome are not understood. The global work index (GWI) is a novel echocardiographic measure of systolic function that may offer insights on cardiac dysfunction in COVID-19. We hypothesized that GWI was associated with disease severity and all-cause death in patients with COVID-19. Methods and Results In a multicenter study of patients admitted with COVID-19 (n=305), 249 underwent pressure-strain loop analyses to quantify GWI at a median time of 4 days after admission. We examined the association of GWI to cardiac biomarkers (troponin and NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]), disease severity (oxygen requirement and CRP [C-reactive protein]), and all-cause death. Patients with elevated troponin (n=71) exhibited significantly reduced GWI (1508 versus 1707 mm Hg%; P=0.018). A curvilinear association to NT-proBNP was observed, with increasing NT-proBNP once GWI decreased below 1446 mm Hg%. Moreover, GWI was significantly associated with a higher oxygen requirement (relative increase of 6% per 100-mm Hg% decrease). No association was observed with CRP. Of the 249 patients, 37 died during follow-up (median, 58 days). In multivariable Cox regression, GWI was associated with all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.01-1.15], per 100-mm Hg% decrease), but did not increase C-statistics when added to clinical parameters. Conclusions In patients admitted with COVID-19, our findings indicate that NT-proBNP and troponin may be associated with lower GWI, whereas CRP is not. GWI was independently associated with all-cause death, but did not provide prognostic information beyond readily available clinical parameters. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04377035.

Feasibility of randomizing Danish citizens aged 65-79 years to high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine vs. standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine in a pragmatic registry-based setting: rationale and design of the DANFLU-1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-dose influenza vaccines provide better protection against influenza infection than standard-dose in persons aged 65 years and above; however, in most countries, high-dose vaccines are not widely implemented. Assessing the relative effectiveness of high-dose compared to standard-dose vaccines on hospitalizations and mortality would enable more robust public health and cost-effectiveness estimates. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in Denmark comparing high-dose to standard-dose vaccines utilizing existing vaccination infrastructure and the Danish nationwide health registries for data collection. METHODS: The DANFLU-1 trial (NCT05048589) is a pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled randomized trial randomizing Danish citizens aged 65-79 years to either high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine or standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine. The study utilizes the infrastructure of a private vaccination provider (Danske Lægers Vaccinations Service) for recruitment, inclusion, randomization, and vaccination. All collection of baseline and follow-up data including safety monitoring is performed centrally by the Department of Cardiology at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark using the Danish nationwide health registries. The study aims to include 40,000 participants during the 2021/2022 influenza season. The primary endpoints address feasibility and include the number of participants enrolled, randomization balance, and representativeness compared to the Danish general population. Relative vaccine effectiveness will also be assessed, however, this feasibility study is not powered for clinical outcomes and may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: The DANFLU-1 study is investigating the feasibility of conducting a large-scale pragmatic clinical trial in Denmark utilizing existing infrastructure and the Danish nationwide registries. This will provide valuable insight, especially for potential future fully powered vaccine trials, but also for trials wishing to investigate other interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT05048589 , registered September 17, 2021.

Antibody responses and risk factors associated with impaired immunological outcomes following two doses of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in patients with chronic pulmonary diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Responses to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with chronic pulmonary diseases are poorly characterised. We aimed to describe humoral responses following two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and identify risk factors for impaired responses. METHODS: Prospective cohort study including adults with chronic pulmonary diseases and healthcare personnel as controls (1:1). Blood was sampled at inclusion, 3 weeks, 2 and 6 months after first vaccination. We reported antibody concentrations as geometric means with 95% CI of receptor binding domain (RBD)-IgG and neutralising antibody index of inhibition of ACE-2/RBD interaction (%). A low responder was defined as neutralising index in the lowest quartile (primary outcome) or RBD-IgG <225 AU/mL plus neutralising index <25% (secondary outcome), measured at 2 months. We tested associations using Poisson regression. RESULTS: We included 593 patients and 593 controls, 75% of all had neutralising index ≥97% at 2 months. For the primary outcome, 34.7% of patients (n=157/453) and 12.9% of controls (n=46/359) were low responders (p<0.0001). For the secondary outcome, 8.6% of patients (n=39/453) and 1.4% of controls (n=5/359) were low responders (p<0.001). Risk factors associated with low responder included increasing age (per decade, adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32), Charlson Comorbidity Index (per point) (aRR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26), use of prednisolone (aRR 2.08, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.77) and other immunosuppressives (aRR 2.21, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.97). DISCUSSION: Patients with chronic pulmonary diseases established functional humoral responses to vaccination, however lower than controls. Age, comorbidities and immunosuppression were associated with poor immunological responses.

Social Distancing in Relation to Severe Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Semi-Experimental Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Social distancing measures introduced on March 12, 2020, in Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic may affect non-COVID-19 admissions for severe acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (s-AECOPD). We compared rates of s-AECOPD in a nationwide, observational, semi-experimental cohort study using data from all Danish inhabitants between calendar week 1 through 25 in 2019 and 2020. In a sub-cohort of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, we examined incidence of s-AECOPD, admissions to an intensive care unit, and all-cause mortality. A total of 3.0 million inhabitants aged ≥40 years, corresponding to 3.0 million person-years, were followed for s-AECOPD. In the social distancing period in 2020, there were 6,212 incidents of s-AECOPD, compared with 11,260 incidents in 2019, resulting in a 45% relative risk reduction. In the cohort with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 16,675), we observed a lower risk of s-AECOPD in the social distancing period (subdistribution hazard ratio (HR) = 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33, 0.36; absolute risk: 25.4% in 2020 and 42.8% in 2019). The risk of admissions to an intensive care unit was reduced (subdistribution HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.87), as was all-cause mortality (HR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.90). Overall, the social distancing period was associated with a significant risk reduction for hospital admittance with s-AECOPD.

The Impact of Social Distancing in 2020 on Admission Rates for Exacerbations in Asthma: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Social distancing measures introduced during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic have reduced admission rates for various infectious and noninfectious respiratory diseases. We hypothesized that rates of asthma exacerbations would decline following the national lockdown in Denmark. OBJECTIVE: To determine weekly rates of in- and out-of-hospital asthma exacerbations before and during the social distancing intervention implemented on March 12, 2020. METHODS: All individuals older than 18 years with at least 1 outpatient hospital contact with asthma as the main diagnosis from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, were included. Weekly asthma exacerbation rates from January 1, 2018, to May 22, 2020, were calculated. An interrupted time-series model with the lockdown on March 12, 2020, as the point of interruption was used. RESULTS: A total of 38,225 patients with asthma were identified. The interrupted time-series model showed no immediate fall in exacerbation rates during the first week after March 12, 2020. However, there was a significant decline in weekly exacerbation rates in the following 10 weeks (change in trend for exacerbations requiring hospitalization: -0.75 [95% CI, -1.39 to -0.12]; P < .02 and in all asthma exacerbations: -12.2 [95% CI, -19.1 to -5.4; P < .001), amounting to a reduction of approximately 1 and 16.5 exacerbations per year per 100 patients in the cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the social distancing measures in Denmark did not lead to an immediate reduction in asthma exacerbation rates; however, a gradual decline in exacerbation rates during the following 10-week period was observed.

Lung ultrasound findings following COVID-19 hospitalization: A prospective longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a useful tool for diagnosis and monitoring in patients with active COVID-19-infection. However, less is known about the changes in LUS findings after a hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: In a prospective, longitudinal study in patients with COVID-19 enrolled from non-ICU hospital units, adult patients underwent 8-zone LUS and blood sampling both during the hospitalization and 2-3 months after discharge. LUS images were analyzed blinded to clinical variables and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients with interpretable LUS at baseline and follow up (mean age 64 years, 61% male, 24% with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)) were included. The follow-up LUS was performed a median of 72 days after the initial LUS performed during hospitalization. At baseline, 87% had pathologic LUS findings in ≥1 zone (e.g. ≥3 B-lines, confluent B-lines or subpleural or lobar consolidation), whereas 30% had pathologic findings at follow-up (p < 0.001). The total number of B-lines and LUS score decreased significantly from hospitalization to follow-up (median 17 vs. 4, p < 0.001 and 4 vs. 0, p < 0.001, respectively). On the follow-up LUS, 28% of all patients had ≥3 B-lines in ≥1 zone, whereas in those with ARDS during the baseline hospitalization (n = 17), 47% had ≥3 B-lines in ≥1 zone. CONCLUSION: LUS findings improved significantly from hospitalization to follow-up 2-3 months after discharge in COVID-19 survivors. However, persistent B-lines were frequent at follow-up, especially among those who initially had ARDS. LUS seems to be a promising method to monitor COVID-19 lung changes over time. GOV ID: NCT04377035.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Management of COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure with Alternatives to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: High-Flow Oxygen, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Noninvasive Ventilation.

Patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may develop acute respiratory failure (ARF) with compromised gas exchange. These patients require oxygen and possibly ventilatory support, which can be delivered via different devices. Initially, oxygen therapy will often be administered through a conventional binasal oxygen catheter or air-entrainment mask. However, when higher rates of oxygen flow are needed, patients are often stepped up to high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). BiPAP, CPAP, and HFNC may be beneficial alternatives to IMV for COVID-19-associated ARF. Current evidence suggests that when nasal catheter oxygen therapy is insufficient for adequate oxygenation of patients with COVID-19-associated ARF, CPAP should be provided for prolonged periods. Subsequent escalation to IMV may be implemented if necessary.

Lung ultrasound findings in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in relation to venous thromboembolic events: the ECHOVID-19 study.

PURPOSE: Several studies have reported thromboembolic events to be common in severe COVID-19 cases. We sought to investigate the relationship between lung ultrasound (LUS) findings in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and the development of venous thromboembolic events (VTE). METHODS: A total of 203 adults were included from a COVID-19 ward in this prospective multi-center study (mean age 68.6 years, 56.7% men). All patients underwent 8-zone LUS, and all ultrasound images were analyzed off-line blinded. Several LUS findings were investigated (total number of B-lines, B-line score, and LUS-scores). RESULTS: Median time from admission to LUS examination was 4 days (IQR: 2, 8). The median number of B-lines was 12 (IQR: 8, 18), and 44 (21.7%) had a positive B-line score. During hospitalization, 17 patients developed VTE (4 deep-vein thrombosis, 15 pulmonary embolism), 12 following and 5 prior to LUS. In fully adjusted multivariable Cox models (excluding participants with VTE prior to LUS), all LUS parameters were significantly associated with VTE (total number of B-lines: HR = 1.14, 95% CI (1.03, 1.26) per 1 B-line increase), positive B-line score: HR = 9.79, 95% CI (1.87, 51.35), and LUS-score: HR = 1.51, 95% CI (1.10, 2.07), per 1-point increase). The B-line score and LUS-score remained significantly associated with VTE in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pathological LUS findings were common, and the total number of B-lines, B-line score, and LUS-score were all associated with VTE. These findings indicate that the LUS examination may be useful in risk stratification and the clinical management of COVID-19. These findings should be considered hypothesis generating. GOV ID: NCT04377035.