Proteomic characteristics and diagnostic potential of exhaled breath particles in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to predominantly infect the airways and the respiratory tract and too often have an unpredictable and different pathologic pattern compared to other respiratory diseases. Current clinical diagnostical tools in pulmonary medicine expose patients to harmful radiation, are too unspecific or even invasive. Proteomic analysis of exhaled breath particles (EBPs) in contrast, are non-invasive, sample directly from the pathological source and presents as a novel explorative and diagnostical tool. METHODS: Patients with PCR-verified COVID-19 infection (COV-POS, n = 20), and patients with respiratory symptoms but with > 2 negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests (COV-NEG, n = 16) and healthy controls (HCO, n = 12) were prospectively recruited. EBPs were collected using a "particles in exhaled air" (PExA 2.0) device. Particle per exhaled volume (PEV) and size distribution profiles were compared. Proteins were analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. A random forest machine learning classification model was then trained and validated on EBP data achieving an accuracy of 0.92. RESULTS: Significant increases in PEV and changes in size distribution profiles of EBPs was seen in COV-POS and COV-NEG compared to healthy controls. We achieved a deep proteome profiling of EBP across the three groups with proteins involved in immune activation, acute phase response, cell adhesion, blood coagulation, and known components of the respiratory tract lining fluid, among others. We demonstrated promising results for the use of an integrated EBP biomarker panel together with particle concentration for diagnosis of COVID-19 as well as a robust method for protein identification in EBPs. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the promising potential for the use of EBP fingerprints in biomarker discovery and for diagnosing pulmonary diseases, rapidly and non-invasively with minimal patient discomfort.

Lung transplant after 6 months on ECMO support for SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS complicated by severe antibody-mediated rejection.

There have been a few reports of successful lung transplantation (LTx) in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, all reports were with rather short follow-up. Here we present a 62-year-old man without prior lung diseases. Following SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and 6 months of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, he underwent LTx. 3 months post-transplantation he developed acute hypoxia requiring emergency intubation. Chest imaging showed acute rejection, and de novo DQ8-DSA was discovered. He was treated with a high dose of corticosteroids and plasmapheresis and was extubated 4 days later, yet the de novo DQ8-DSA remained. After sessions of plasmapheresis and rituximab, the levels of de novo DQ8-DSA remained unchanged. Nine months post-transplantation the patient died of respiratory failure. We herein discuss the decision to transplant, the transplantation itself and the postoperative course with severe antibody-mediated rejection. In addition, we evaluated the histological changes of the explanted lungs and compared these with end-stage idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis tissue, where both similarities and differences are seen. With the current case experience, one might consider close monitoring regarding DSA, and gives further support that LTx should only be considered for very carefully selected patients.

Monitoring lung injury with particle flow rate in LPS- and COVID-19-induced ARDS.

In severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-prolonging treatment, especially among COVID-19 patients. Evaluation of lung injury progression is challenging with current techniques. Diagnostic imaging or invasive diagnostics are risky given the difficulties of intra-hospital transportation, contraindication of biopsies, and the potential for the spread of infections, such as in COVID-19 patients. We have recently shown that particle flow rate (PFR) from exhaled breath could be a noninvasive, early detection method for ARDS during mechanical ventilation. We hypothesized that PFR could also measure the progress of lung injury during ECMO treatment. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was thus used to induce ARDS in pigs under mechanical ventilation. Eight were connected to ECMO, whereas seven animals were not. In addition, six animals received sham treatment with saline. Four human patients with ECMO and ARDS were also monitored. In the pigs, as lung injury ensued, the PFR dramatically increased and a particular spike followed the establishment of ECMO in the LPS-treated animals. PFR remained elevated in all animals with no signs of lung recovery. In the human patients, in the two that recovered, PFR decreased. In the two whose lung function deteriorated while on ECMO, there was increased PFR with no sign of recovery in lung function. The present results indicate that real-time monitoring of PFR may be a new, complementary approach in the clinic for measurement of the extent of lung injury and recovery over time in ECMO patients with ARDS.