Inhaled prostacyclin therapy in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in significant hypoxia, and ARDS is the central pathology of COVID-19. Inhaled prostacyclin has been proposed as a therapy for ARDS, but data regarding its role in this syndrome are unavailable. Therefore, we investigated whether inhaled prostacyclin would affect the oxygenation and survival of patients suffering from ARDS. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled single-blind multicenter trial across Germany. The trial was conducted from March 2019 with final follow-up on 12th of August 2021. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS were included and randomized to receive either inhaled prostacyclin (3 times/day for 5 days) or sodium chloride (Placebo). The primary outcome was the oxygenation index in the intervention and control groups on Day 5 of therapy. Secondary outcomes were mortality, secondary organ failure, disease severity and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 707 patients approached 150 patients were randomized to receive inhaled prostacyclin (n = 73) or sodium chloride (n = 77). Data from 144 patients were analyzed. The baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio did not differ between groups. The primary analysis of the study was negative, and prostacyclin improved oxygenation by 20 mmHg more than Placebo (p = 0.17). Secondary analysis showed that the oxygenation was significantly improved in patients with ARDS who were COVID-19-positive (34 mmHg, p = 0.04). Mortality did not differ between groups. Secondary organ failure and adverse events were similar in the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The primary result of our study was negative. Our data suggest that inhaled prostacyclin might be beneficial treatment in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tübingen (899/2018AMG1) and the corresponding ethical review boards of all participating centers. The trial was also approved by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM, EudraCT No. 2016003168-37) and registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03111212) on April 6th 2017.

COVID-19 does not influence functional status after ARDS therapy.

RATIONALE: Health-related quality of life after surviving acute respiratory distress syndrome has come into focus in recent years, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: A total of 144 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 or of other origin were recruited in a randomized multicenter trial. METHODS: Clinical data during intensive care treatment and data up to 180 days after study inclusion were collected. Changes in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score were used to quantify disease severity. Disability was assessed using the Barthel index on days 1, 28, 90, and 180. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality rate and morbidity after 180 days were compared between patients with and without COVID-19. Independent risk factors associated with high disability were identified using a binary logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS: The SOFA score at day 5 was an independent risk factor for high disability in both groups, and score dynamic within the first 5 days significantly impacted disability in the non-COVID group. Mortality after 180 days and impairment measured by the Barthel index did not differ between patients with and without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Resolution of organ dysfunction within the first 5 days significantly impacts long-term morbidity. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 was not associated with increased mortality or morbidity.

[Weaning from prolonged mechanical ventilation on a specialised weaning unit: a retrospective comparison of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection]. / Entwöhnung von der Langzeitbeatmung nach ARDS auf einer spezialisierten Weaning-Einheit ­ ein retrospektiver Vergleich von Patienten mit und ohne SARS-CoV-2 Infektion.

BACKGROUND: Available data on patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation due to severe COVID-19 are sparse. Here we compare patients with ARDS related or not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection treated in a specialised weaning unit. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation associated with an ARDS admitted from the 21st November 2013 to the 23rd July 2021 to the weaning unit of the University Hospital RWTH Aachen was performed. ARDS patients with COVID-19 (cARDS) were compared to patients with ARDS not related to COVID-19 (ncARDS). RESULTS: In total, n=129 patients in prolonged need for mechanical ventilation after ARDS were treated in the weaning unit, of whom n=38 had been suffering from ARDS related to COVID-19. Both patients groups were similar in terms of demographic parameters, underlying chronic illnesses, severity of ARDS and the duration of mechanical ventilation before being admitted to the weaning unit. During ICU stay, prone positioning and therapy with systemic corticosteroids was used more frequently in cARDS patients. Furthermore, therapy with vasoconstrictors was needed more often (cARDS: 42.1% vs. ncARDS 12.1%; p=0.0003) and urinary output was lower (cARDS: 1980 ml vs. ncARDS: 2600 ml; p=0.0037) in this patient group. The clinical course of the weaning process was similar in patients with cARDS and ncARDS, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of complications and the duration of mechanical ventilation. There were n=5 deaths (13.2%) in the cARDS and n=15 deaths (16.5%) in the ncARDS group. After hospital discharge, n=4 patients required non-invasive ventilation whereas out-of-hospital invasive ventilation was only necessary in one patient (all in the ncARDS group). CONCLUSION: After having survived the acute phase, the disease prognosis of patients with severe COVID-19 is favourable and most patients can be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation. In addition, there were only minor differences compared to patients with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19.

Dissecting CD8+ T cell pathology of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection by single-cell immunoprofiling.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection results in varying disease severity, ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe illness. A detailed understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical to unravel the causative factors underlying differences in disease severity and to develop optimal vaccines against new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Methods: We combined single-cell RNA and T cell receptor sequencing with CITE-seq antibodies to characterize the CD8+ T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection at high resolution and compared responses between mild and severe COVID-19. Results: We observed increased CD8+ T cell exhaustion in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and identified a population of NK-like, terminally differentiated CD8+ effector T cells characterized by expression of FCGR3A (encoding CD16). Further characterization of NK-like CD8+ T cells revealed heterogeneity among CD16+ NK-like CD8+ T cells and profound differences in cytotoxicity, exhaustion, and NK-like differentiation between mild and severe disease conditions. Discussion: We propose a model in which differences in the surrounding inflammatory milieu lead to crucial differences in NK-like differentiation of CD8+ effector T cells, ultimately resulting in the appearance of NK-like CD8+ T cell populations of different functionality and pathogenicity. Our in-depth characterization of the CD8+ T cell-mediated response to SARS-CoV-2 infection provides a basis for further investigation of the importance of NK-like CD8+ T cells in COVID-19 severity.

Predicting COVID-19 prognosis in the ICU remained challenging: external validation in a multinational regional cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Many prediction models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been developed. External validation is mandatory before implementation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We selected and validated prognostic models in the Euregio Intensive Care COVID (EICC) cohort. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this multinational cohort study, routine data from COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within the Euregio Meuse-Rhine were collected from March to August 2020. COVID-19 models were selected based on model type, predictors, outcomes, and reporting. Furthermore, general ICU scores were assessed. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and calibration by calibration-in-the-large and calibration plots. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results. RESULTS: 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, 29% were female, and ICU mortality was 36%. Nine out of 238 published models were externally validated. Pooled AUCs were between 0.53 and 0.70 and calibration-in-the-large between -9% and 6%. Calibration plots showed generally poor but, for the 4C Mortality score and Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) score, moderate calibration. CONCLUSION: Of the nine prognostic models that were externally validated in the EICC cohort, only two showed reasonable discrimination and moderate calibration. For future pandemics, better models based on routine data are needed to support admission decision-making.

The Potential Impact of Heparanase Activity and Endothelial Damage in COVID-19 Disease.

SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in 2019 in Wuhan, China. It has been found to be the most pathogenic virus among coronaviruses and is associated with endothelial damage resulting in respiratory failure. Determine whether heparanase and heparan sulfate fragments, biomarkers of endothelial function, can assist in the risk stratification and clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We investigated 53 critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 admitted between March and April 2020 to the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Heparanase activity and serum levels of both heparanase and heparan sulfate were measured on day one (day of diagnosis) and day three in patients with COVID-19. The patients were classified into four groups according to the severity of ARDS. When compared to baseline data (day one), heparanase activity increased and the heparan sulfate serum levels decreased with increasing severity of ARDS. The heparanase activity significantly correlated with the lactate concentration on day one (r = 0.34, p = 0.024) and on day three (r = 0.43, p = 0.006). Heparanase activity and heparan sulfate levels correlate with COVID-19 disease severity and outcome. Both biomarkers might be helpful in predicting clinical course and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. FINDINGS: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections. FUNDING: InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Diaphragm dysfunction as a potential determinant of dyspnea on exertion in patients 1 year after COVID-19-related ARDS.

Some COVID-19 patients experience dyspnea without objective impairment of pulmonary or cardiac function. This study determined diaphragm function and its central voluntary activation as a potential correlate with exertional dyspnea after COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in ten patients and matched controls. One year post discharge, both pulmonary function tests and echocardiography were normal. However, six patients with persisting dyspnea on exertion showed impaired volitional diaphragm function and control based on ultrasound, magnetic stimulation and balloon catheter-based recordings. Diaphragm dysfunction with impaired voluntary activation can be present 1 year after severe COVID-19 ARDS and may relate to exertional dyspnea.This prospective case-control study was registered under the trial registration number NCT04854863 April, 22 2021.

Differences and Similarities Among COVID-19 Patients Treated in Seven ICUs in Three Countries Within One Region: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate healthcare system-driven variation in general characteristics, interventions, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU within one Western European region across three countries. DESIGN: Multicenter observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients supported in the ICU during the first pandemic wave. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after ethical approval and data-sharing agreements. Descriptive statistics were performed to investigate country-related practice variation. From March 2, 2020, to August 12, 2020, 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, and 29% were female. At admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 15.0 ± 5.5, 16.8 ± 5.5, and 15.8 ± 5.3 (p = 0.002), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 4.4 ± 2.7, 7.4 ± 2.2, and 7.7 ± 3.2 (p < 0.001) in the Belgian, Dutch, and German parts of Euregio, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 22%, 42%, and 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences were observed in the frequency of organ support, antimicrobial/inflammatory therapy application, and ICU capacity. Mixed-multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that differences in ICU mortality were independent of age, sex, disease severity, comorbidities, support strategies, therapies, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within one region, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, differed significantly in general characteristics, applied interventions, and outcomes despite presumed genetic and socioeconomic background, admission diagnosis, access to international literature, and data collection are similar. Variances in healthcare systems' organization, particularly ICU capacity and admission criteria, combined with a rapidly spreading pandemic might be important drivers for the observed differences. Heterogeneity between patient groups but also healthcare systems should be presumed to interfere with outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019.

Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients : Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021).

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

Long COVID-19: Objectifying most self-reported neurological symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to objectify and compare persisting self-reported symptoms in initially hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by applying clinical standardized measures. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection including medical history, neurological examination, blood markers, neuropsychological testing, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: Fifty patients with persisting symptoms for at least 4 weeks were included and classified by initial hospitalization status. Median time from SARS-CoV-2 detection to investigation was 29.3 weeks (range 3.3-57.9). Although individual cognitive performance was generally within the normative range in both groups, mostly mild deficits were found in attention, executive functions, and memory. Hospitalized patients performed worse in global cognition, logical reasoning, and processes of verbal memory. In both groups, fatigue severity was associated with reduced performance in attention and psychomotor speed tasks (rs = -0.40, p < 0.05) and reduced quality of life (EQ5D, rs = 0.57, p < 0.001) and with more persisting symptoms (median 3 vs. 6, p < 0.01). PROMs identified fatigue, reduced sleep quality, and increased anxiety and depression in both groups but more pronounced in non-hospitalized patients. Brain MRI revealed microbleeds exclusively in hospitalized patients (n = 5). INTERPRETATION: Regardless of initial COVID-19 severity, an individuals' mental and physical health can be severely impaired in the long-term limitedly objectified by clinical standard diagnostic with abnormalities primarily found in hospitalized patients. This needs to be considered when planning rehabilitation therapies and should give rise to new biomarker research.

Better COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit survival in females, independent of age, disease severity, comorbidities, and treatment.

Although male Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients have higher Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rates and a worse disease course, a comprehensive analysis of female and male ICU survival and underlying factors such as comorbidities, risk factors, and/or anti-infection/inflammatory therapy administration is currently lacking. Therefore, we investigated the association between sex and ICU survival, adjusting for these and other variables. In this multicenter observational cohort study, all patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to seven ICUs in one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany, and requiring vital organ support during the first pandemic wave were included. With a random intercept for a center, mixed-effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between sex and ICU survival. Models were adjusted for age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, comorbidities, and anti-infection/inflammatory therapy. Interaction terms were added to investigate effect modifications by sex with country and sex with obesity. A total of 551 patients (29% were females) were included. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years. Females were more often obese and smoked less frequently than males (p-value 0.001 and 0.042, respectively). APACHE II scores of females and males were comparable. Overall, ICU mortality was 12% lower in females than males (27% vs 39% respectively, p-value < 0.01) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.62 (95%CI 0.39-0.96, p-value 0.032) after adjustment for age and APACHE II score, 0.63 (95%CI 0.40-0.99, p-value 0.044) after additional adjustment for comorbidities, and 0.63 (95%CI 0.39-0.99, p-value 0.047) after adjustment for anti-infection/inflammatory therapy. No effect modifications by sex with country and sex with obesity were found (p-values for interaction > 0.23 and 0.84, respectively). ICU survival in female SARS-CoV-2 patients was higher than in male patients, independent of age, disease severity, smoking, obesity, comorbidities, anti-infection/inflammatory therapy, and country. Sex-specific biological mechanisms may play a role, emphasizing the need to address diversity, such as more sex-specific prediction, prognostic, and therapeutic approach strategies.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with COVID-19: 1-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed reasonable outcomes. However, recent studies indicated a negative trend and analysis is needed. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, and outcomes of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 were analyzed in a retrospective single-center study. We included hospital admissions until February 28, 2021; patients were followed until discharge/death. Eventually, we compared data between patients hospitalized before and after September 1, 2020. RESULTS: Median age of patients treated with ECMO (n=39) was 56 years; most patients were males (n=28, 72%). Median mechanical ventilation time (prior to ECMO) was 6 days, while the median ECMO duration was 19 days. Overall survival rate was 41%. In the sub-analysis, survival until discharge in the first and second epidemic waves was 53% (n=19) and 30% (n=20), respectively (P=0.2). At baseline, compared with patients of the first wave, those of the second wave had higher median body mass index (28.2 vs. 31.1 kg/m2, respectively, P=0.02), bicarbonate (27 vs. 31.8 mmol/L, respectively, P=0.033), plasma free hemoglobin (36 vs. 58 mg/L, respectively, P=0.013), alanine aminotransferase (33 vs. 52 U/L, respectively, P=0.018), and pH (7.29 vs. 7.42, respectively, P=0.005), lower rate of pulmonary hypertension (32% vs. 0%, respectively, P=0.008), lower positive end-expiratory pressure (14 vs. 12 cmH2O, respectively, P=0.04), longer median ECMO duration (16 vs. 24.5 days, respectively, P=0.074), and more frequent major bleeding events (42% vs. 80%, respectively, P=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 had an overall survival rate of 41%. Similar to international registries, we observed less favorable outcomes during the second wave. Further research is needed to confirm this signal and find predictors for mortality.

Prognostic Value of Bioactive Adrenomedullin in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Germany: An Observational Cohort Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed a significant burden on hospitals worldwide. Objective biomarkers for early risk stratification and clinical management are still lacking. The aim of this work was to determine whether bioactive adrenomedullin can assist in the risk stratification and clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Fifty-three patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included in this prospective observational cohort study between March and April 2020. Bioactive adrenomedullin (bio-ADM) plasma concentration was measured daily for seven days after admission. The prognostic value and clinical significance of bio-ADM plasma levels were evaluated for the severity of respiratory failure, the need for extracorporeal organ support and outcome (28-day mortality). Bio-ADM levels increased with the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; p < 0.001) and were significantly elevated in invasively ventilated patients (p = 0.006) and patients in need of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (p = 0.040) or renal replacement therapy (RRT; p < 0.001) compared to patients without these conditions. Non-survivors showed significantly higher bio-ADM levels than survivors (p = 0.010). Bio-ADM levels predicted 28-day mortality (C-index 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.87, p < 0.001). Bio-ADM plasma levels correlate with disease severity, the need for extracorporeal organ assistance, and outcome, and highlight the promising value of bio-ADM in the early risk stratification and management of patients with COVID-19.

Biometric covariates and outcome in COVID-19 patients: are we looking close enough?

BACKGROUND: The impact of biometric covariates on risk for adverse outcomes of COVID-19 disease was assessed by numerous observational studies on unstratified cohorts, which show great heterogeneity. However, multilevel evaluations to find possible complex, e.g. non-monotonic multi-variate patterns reflecting mutual interference of parameters are missing. We used a more detailed, computational analysis to investigate the influence of biometric differences on mortality and disease evolution among severely ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We analyzed a group of COVID-19 patients requiring Intensive care unit (ICU) treatment. For further analysis, the study group was segmented into six subgroups according to Body mass index (BMI) and age. To link the BMI/age derived subgroups with risk factors, we performed an enrichment analysis of diagnostic parameters and comorbidities. To suppress spurious patterns, multiple segmentations were analyzed and integrated into a consensus score for each analysis step. RESULTS: We analyzed 81 COVID-19 patients, of whom 67 required mechanical ventilation (MV). Mean mortality was 35.8%. We found a complex, non-monotonic interaction between age, BMI and mortality. A subcohort of patients with younger age and intermediate BMI exhibited a strongly reduced mortality risk (p < 0.001), while differences in all other groups were not significant. Univariate impacts of BMI or age on mortality were missing. Comparing MV with non-MV patients, we found an enrichment of baseline CRP, PCT and D-Dimers within the MV group, but not when comparing survivors vs. non-survivors within the MV patient group. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this study was to get a more detailed insight into the influence of biometric covariates on the outcome of COVID-19 patients with high degree of severity. We found that survival in MV is affected by complex interactions of covariates differing to the reported covariates, which are hidden in generic, non-stratified studies on risk factors. Hence, our study suggests that a detailed, multivariate pattern analysis on larger patient cohorts reflecting the specific disease stages might reveal more specific patterns of risk factors supporting individually adapted treatment strategies.

Machine learning identifies ICU outcome predictors in a multicenter COVID-19 cohort.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Resources are heavily utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, risk stratification and prediction of SARS-CoV-2 patient clinical outcomes upon ICU admission remain inadequate. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model, based on retrospective & prospective clinical data, to stratify patient risk and predict ICU survival and outcomes. METHODS: A Germany-wide electronic registry was established to pseudonymously collect admission, therapeutic and discharge information of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients retrospectively and prospectively. Machine learning approaches were evaluated for the accuracy and interpretability of predictions. The Explainable Boosting Machine approach was selected as the most suitable method. Individual, non-linear shape functions for predictive parameters and parameter interactions are reported. RESULTS: 1039 patients were included in the Explainable Boosting Machine model, 596 patients retrospectively collected, and 443 patients prospectively collected. The model for prediction of general ICU outcome was shown to be more reliable to predict "survival". Age, inflammatory and thrombotic activity, and severity of ARDS at ICU admission were shown to be predictive of ICU survival. Patients' age, pulmonary dysfunction and transfer from an external institution were predictors for ECMO therapy. The interaction of patient age with D-dimer levels on admission and creatinine levels with SOFA score without GCS were predictors for renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Using Explainable Boosting Machine analysis, we confirmed and weighed previously reported and identified novel predictors for outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Using this strategy, predictive modeling of COVID-19 ICU patient outcomes can be performed overcoming the limitations of linear regression models. Trial registration "ClinicalTrials" (clinicaltrials.gov) under NCT04455451.

[Medical students as helpers in the pandemic : Innovative concept for recruitment, training and assignment planning of medical students as medical personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Medizinstudierende als Helfende in der Pandemie : Innovatives Konzept zu Rekrutierung, Schulung und Einsatzplanung von Medizinstudierenden als medizinisches Personal während der COVID-19-Pandemie.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic posed enormous challenges to the German healthcare system and highlighted the need for strategies to recruit, train, and deploy medical personnel. Until now, no holistic concept existed to use medical students as support for professionals in intensive care units (ICU) to avoid staff shortages in medical care. METHOD: In a large-scale pilot project 265 medical students were trained for an ICU assignment. The innovative training module was accompanied by a pre-post questionnaire for self-assessment of the skills learned. 22 weeks after the training module and still during the pandemic deployment, another questionnaire was used to evaluate experiences in deployment and the efficiency of the training module with respect to preparation for ICU deployment. RESULTS: The analysis revealed significant mean differences for all COVID-19-specific variables (safety dimension) in favor of the training module (n = 168). The deployment evaluation showed that the training concept was inconsistently assessed as preparation for the work deployment for 69 of the 89 deployed students in total (53% agreement/47% disagreement). CONCLUSION: The results show a good feasibility of an innovative training concept for medical students with respect to a pandemic deployment as assistants in intensive care units. The concept is suitable for providing additional helpers in intensive care units during a pandemic; however, the inconsistent evaluation indicates that the concept can be expanded and needs to be adapted.