Real-time, leukocyte-related, four times validated, patient data partitioning

Introduction: Indicators that assess relationships among leukocytes may inform more and/or earlier than those measured in isolation. Method(s): Blood leukocyte differential counts collected from 101 Mayo Clinic COVID-19 patients were related to later outcomes following two approaches: (i) as unstructured data (e.g., lymphocyte percentages) and (ii) as data structures that assess intercellular interactions. Analyzing the same primary data, it was asked whether information contents differed among methods and/or when two sets of structured indicators are used. Result(s): While unstructured data did not distinguish survivors from non-survivors (Fig. 1, rectangle A), one data structure (here identified with letters expressed in italics) exhibited one perpendicular inflection that differentiated two patient groups (B). Two survivor-related observations were also distinguished from the remaining data points (B). A second data structure also revealed a single line of observations and a perpendicular data inflection (C), while more (four) patient groups were identified (D). Four validations were conducted: (i) increasing mortality levels among contiguous data subsets (0, 7.1, 16.2, or 44.4%) suggested construct validity (D);(ii) internal validity was indicated because 22 of the 45 survivors detected by the first data structure were also captured by the second one;(iii) the analysis of patients that differed in address, co-morbidities and other aspects supported external validity;and (iv) quasi non-overlapping data intervals predicted statistical validity (E, F). The structured approach also uncovered new and/ or dissimilar information: different leukocyte-related ratios explained the clusters identified in these analyses (E, F). Conclusion(s): Structured data may yield more information than methods that do not assess multicellular interactions. Possible applications include daily, longitudinal, and personalized analysis of hospital data.

Use of remdesivir for COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with advanced kidney disease: A retrospective multicenter study.

Background and objectives: Remdesivir, an antiviral drug routinely used in the treatment of COVID-19 has not yet received FDA approval for use in patients with advanced kidney disease defined as GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. There is concern that an excipient in Veklury (Gilead's proprietary name for remdesivir) called sulfobutylether-beta-cyclodextrin (SBECD), which is renally cleared, may accumulate and reach toxic levels in patients with advanced kidney disease. The aim of this study was to summarize characteristics and incidence of adverse events of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who received remdesivir during hospitalization.Design, setting, participants, and measurements.We retrospectively studied patients admitted to one of several hospitals of the Mayo Clinic Foundation with the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia and CKD. Laboratory values were also measured when remdesivir was first administered and stopped. All analyses were performed in the overall patient group and three separate subgroups of patients with a GFR ≥ 15, a GFR < 15 and dialysis, and a GFR < 15 and no dialysis. Results: A total of 444 CKD patients who were admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia between May 2020 and September 2021 were included. Information was collected on patient characteristics, hospitalization, and adverse events. In the overall cohort, median age was 72 years (Range: 21-100 years), 55.2 % of patients were male, and most (86.5 %) were Caucasian. CKD stage was 3 for 114 patients (25.7 %), 4 for 229 patients (51.6 %), and 5 for 101 patients (22.7 %). A total of 146 patients (32.9 %) were admitted to the ICU, 103 (23.2 %) died in the hospital, and 120 (27.0 %) were on dialysis. The proportion of patients with an adverse event did not differ dramatically between the GFR ≥ 15 (20.9 %), GFR < 15 and dialysis (30.2 %), and GFR < 15 and no dialysis (32.3 %) groups (P = 0.12). Conclusion: Our results suggest that the use of remdesivir in patients with very severe CKD is safe, even in those who are not on renal replacement therapy.

Lenzilumab Efficacy and Safety in Newly Hospitalized COVID-19 Subjects: Results from a Phase 3 Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often results from the immune-mediated cytokine storm, triggered by granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), potentially leading to respiratory failure and death. Lenzilumab, a novel anti-human GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, neutralizes GM-CSF and demonstrated potential to improve clinical outcomes in a matched case-cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. This Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab to improve the likelihood of survival without invasive mechanical ventilation (SWOV), beyond available treatments. Methods. Hypoxic patients, hospitalized with COVID-19 (n=520), requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation, were randomized on Day 0 to receive lenzilumab (1800mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259), and available treatments, including remdesivir and/or corticosteroids;and were followed through Day 28. Results. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups: male, 64.7%;mean age, 60.5 years;median CRP, 79.0 mg/L. Patients across both groups received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab improved the primary endpoint, likelihood of SWOV in the mITT population, by 1.54-fold (HR: 1.54;95%CI: 1.02-2.32, p=0.0403). Lenzilumab improved SWOV by 1.91-fold (nominal p=0.0073) and 1.92-fold (nominal p=0.0067) in patients receiving remdesivir or remdesivir and corticosteroids, respectively. A key secondary endpoint of incidence of IMV, ECMO or death was also improved in patients receiving remdesivir (p=0.020) or remdesivir and corticosteroids (p=0.0180). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were similar across both groups. Conclusion. Lenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hypoxic COVID-19 patients upon hospitalization, with the greatest benefit observed in patients receiving treatment with remdesivir and corticosteroids. NCT04351152.

Individualized Prognostics in COVID-19 Facilitated by Computer Recognition of Blood Leukocyte Subsets

Background. To determine whether CBC differentials of COVID+ inpatients can predict, at admission, both maximum oxygen requirements (MOR) and 30-day mortality. Methods. Based on an approved IRB protocol, CBC differentials from the first 3 days of hospitalization of 12 SARS CoV-2 infected patients were retrospectively extracted from hospital records and analyzed with a privately owned Pattern Recognition Software (PRS, US Patent 10,429,389 B2) previously validated in sepsis, HIV, and hantavirus infections. PRS partitions the data into subsets immunologically dissimilar from one another, although internally similar. Results. Regardless of the angle considered, the classic analysis -which measured the percentages of lymphocytes, monocytes, and neutrophils- did not distinguish outcomes (A). In contrast, non-overlapping patterns generated by the PRS differentiated 3 (left, vertical, and right) groups of patients (B). One subset was only composed of survivors (B). The remaining subsets included the highest oxygenation requirements (B). At least two immunologically interpretable, multi-cellular indicators distinguished the 3 data subsets with statistically significant differences (C, p≤ 0.05). Survivors (the left subset) showed lower N/L and/or higher M/L ratios than non-survivors (the vertical subset, C).Therefore, PRS partitioned the data into subsets that displayed both biological and significant differences. Because it offers visually explicit information, clinicians do not require a specialized training to interpret PRS-generated results. CBCs vs. outcomes - Software-analyzed CBCs vs. outcomes Conclusion. (1) Analysis of blood leukocyte data predicts MOR and 30-d mortality. (2) Real time PRS analysis facilitates personalized medical decisions. (3) PRS measures two dimensions rarely assessed: multi-cellularity and dynamics. (4) Even with very small datasets, PRS may achieve statistical significance. (5) Larger COVID+ infected cohort is being analyzed for potential commercialization.

A Retrospective Review of 30-day Mortalities in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients (SOT) versus Non-Transplant Patients (NTP) Receiving Remdesivir (REM) and Dexamethasone (DEX) for COVID-19 Pneumonia

Background. Treating COVID-19 infection in SOT is challenging due to long-term use of immunosuppressive agents. REM is the only FDA-approved anti-viral for SARS-COV-2 infection. DEX showed decrease in mortality in the Recovery Trial. COVID-19 treatment guidelines for SOT patients are the same as NTP despite limited literature on those outcomes. Our primary objective was to determine if 30-day mortality was different between SOT and NTP matched cohorts using these 2 drugs. The secondary objectives included comparisons of length of stay (LOS), days on mechanical ventilation (DMV), and the use of other treatment modalities. Methods. We retrospectively collected data for hospitalized SOT and NTP, 18 years and older, with pcr-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving REM and DEX from May 1, 2020, to October 10, 2020, at Mayo Clinic Florida. IRB approval was obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) or median (range) where appropriate, while categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Results. Of 80 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 28 were SOT, and 52 were NTP. The SOT cohort was subcategorized below: SOT patients were significantly younger than NTP (p < .001). Further, SOT patients had significantly longer LOS (p = 0.043) and more COVID-19 modalities (75% vs. 36.5%, p = 0.002) compared to NTP. Among the 28 SOT patients, 2 of them died within 30 days of admission, and among the 52 NTP patients, 7 of them died within 30 days. The 30-d survival estimate for SOT group is 92.9% (95% CI: 83.8% -100. 0%) and for NTP group is 86.5% (95% CI: 77.7% - 96.3%). The log-rank test was not significant between the groups (p=0.37), but the NTP has a worse survival curve from the figure below. Conclusion. SOT group was younger, had longer LOS, and more COVID-related modalities. The 30-d survival estimate for SOT group is 92.9% and for NTP group is 86.5%, but the survival curve for NTP was worse likely secondary to age. Use of REM & DEX in SOT recipients is a valid recommendation.

C-reactive protein as a biomarker for improved efficacy of lenzilumab in Covid-19 patients: results from the LIVE-AIR trial

BackgroundThe hyperinflammatory cytokine storm (CS) of COVID-19 is mediated by GM-CSF leading to release of downstream inflammatory chemokines, cytokines, and markers of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein, CRP). The LIVE-AIR study demonstrated that lenzilumab, an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, safely improved the likelihood of achieving the primary endpoint, survival without ventilation (SWOV) by 1.54-fold (HR: 1.54;95%CI: 1.02–2.32, p=0.0403) compared with placebo. An exploratory analysis in patients with CRP<150 mg/L and age<85 years was conducted to determine lenzilumab efficacy when administered prior to advanced inflammation.MethodsLIVE-AIR was a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with COVID-19 (n=520), >18 years, and ≤94% oxygen saturation on room air and/or requiring supplemental oxygen, but not invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), were randomized to receive lenzilumab (600 mg, n=261) or placebo (n=259) via three intravenous infusions administered 8 hours apart. Participants were followed through Day 28 following treatment.ResultsOverall, baseline demographics were comparable between treatment groups: male, 64.7%;mean age, 60.5 years;mean BMI, 32.5 kg/m2;median CRP, 79 mg/L;CRP was <150 mg/L in 78% of participants. Participants received steroids (93.7%), remdesivir (72.4%), or both (69.1%). Lenzilumab (n=159) improved the likelihood of SWOV by 3.04-fold in participants with CRP<150 mg/L and age<85 years (3.04;1.68–5.51, nominal p=0.0003) compared with placebo (n=178). Response to lenzilumab was observed in the first through third quartiles of baseline CRP (<41 mg/L, HR:8.33;41<79 mg/L, HR:1.60;79<137 mg/L, HR: 2.12;>137 mg/L, HR: 1.17). The incidence of IMV, ECMO, or death was reduced (OR: 0.31;95%CI: 0.15–0.63, p=0.002) and mortality was improved by 2.22-fold (OR: 2.22;95%CI: 1.07–4.67, p=0.034). In these participants, lenzilumab decreased CRP as early as Day 2 following treatment, compared with placebo which was further decreased by 38% on Day 28 compared with placebo (24.4±3.4 mg/L vs 39.1±4.9 mg/L).ConclusionLenzilumab significantly improved SWOV in hospitalized, hypoxic participants with COVID-19 pneumonia with the greatest benefits in SWOV and survival in patients with CRP<150 mg/L and age <85 years. Inhibition of GM-CSF, an orchestrator of CS, early in the hyperinflammatory response improved outcomes in COVID-19. NCT04351152

Pdsa model to improve pneumococcal vaccine adherence among kidney transplant candidates

Purpose: Streptococcus pneumoniae infections occur in solid organ transplant patients at a rate of 146 per 100,000 persons per year versus 11.5 per 100,000 persons per year in general population. Despite CDC and AST recommendations, studies report suboptimal pneumococcal immunzation in the KT candidates. Our objective was to develop a quality improvement (QI) intervention at Mayo Clinic Florida's (MCF) Transplant Center to increase the number of KT candidates screened for prior pneumococcal immunizations and improve vaccine adherence. Methods: A QI process to improve pneumococcal vaccine adherence in KT candidates at MCF was implemented using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology. After IRB approval was obtained, data was obtained by retrospective electronic health record review and interventions were designed and implemented over sixweek periods based on observed quality gaps. Baseline cohort consisted of patients evaluated for KT at MCF's transplant center from December 2, 2019-January 14, 2020 baseline. Interventions for PDSA cycle 1 (February 11, 2020-March 25, 2020) and PDSA cycle 2 (August 11, 2020-September 22, 2020) included sharing baseline data findings enterprise wide, distributing education materials to all ID MCF transplant center staff, and providing ID MCF advanced care practitioners and physicians with a standard pneumococcal vaccine question set to include in their consultation note. Outcomes included documentation rates of prior pneumococcal vaccinations, pneumococcal vaccine order frequency, and Prevnar 13 order completion rate. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and Pearson's chi-square. Results: Study subjects totaled 214 (baseline n=61, PDSA 1 n=103, PDSA 2 n=50). Pneumococcal immunization history documentation rates improved from baseline 96.7% to 100% post-PDSA cycle 2 (p<0.001). Percentages of patients with a history of Prevnar 13 in baseline, PDSA 1 and PDSA 2 cohorts were 32.8%, 23.3%, and 12.0%, respectively (p<0.001). Percentages of patients with a history of Pneumovax 23 in baseline, PDSA 1 and PDSA 2 cohorts were 32.8%, 34.0%, and 46.0%, respectively (p=0.001). Prevnar 13 and Pneumovax 23 were ordered in the baseline cohort of 92.7% and 100% of patients, respectively. These order rates dropped to 88.6% for Prevnar 13 and 96.8% for Pneumovax 23 post-PDSA likely due to care providers factoring in logistical implications of COVID-19 (p<0.001). Prevnar 13 order completion documentation rates were 41.5%, 38.0%, and 43.6% in baseline, PDSA 1 and PDSA 2 cohorts, respectively (p<0.001). Conclusions: The data reflect that improving pneumococcal vaccine adherence in KT candidates is not a simple process and QI requires ongoing effort by all team members. While pneumococcal vaccines were usually ordered by care providers when appropriate, follow-up with patients who chose to complete their vaccines at a site other than MCF remains a gap in care practices.