Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(12): 2077-2086, 2023 Jun 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2268565

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS: Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%-11.1%; P = .0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , Outpatients , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Serotherapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Hospitalization
2.
Blood Adv ; 6(12): 3678-3683, 2022 06 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1799125

ABSTRACT

The ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The Food and Drug Administration currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral-specific antibody levels in CCP can range 10- to 100-fold between donors, unlike the uniform viral-specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-δ/pre-ο donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units, and 1 pre-δ/pre-ο hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant-specific virus (vaccine-related isolate [WA-1], δ, and ο) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 immunoglobulin G antibody levels. We observed a two- to fourfold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to δ or ο, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all 3 variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , United States , COVID-19 Serotherapy
3.
N Engl J Med ; 386(18): 1700-1711, 2022 05 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768967

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Immunization, Passive , Adult , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/therapy , Disease Progression , Double-Blind Method , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Treatment Outcome , United States , COVID-19 Serotherapy
4.
Transfusion ; 62(5): 933-941, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765061

ABSTRACT

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Outpatients , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , COVID-19 Serotherapy
5.
Nurs Ethics ; 29(4): 787-801, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714581

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Duty to care is integral to nursing practice. Personal obligations that normally conflict with professional obligations are likely amplified during a public health emergency such as COVID-19. Organizations can facilitate a nurse's ability to fulfill the duty to care without compromising on personal obligations. RESEARCH AIM: The study aimed to explore the relationships among duty to care, perception of supportive environment, perceived stress, and COVID-19-specific anxieties in nurses working directly with COVID-19 patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study design was a cross-sectional descriptive study using an online survey. It was conducted at an ANCC Magnet® designated 385-bed acute care teaching hospital located in a suburban area. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Included in this study were 339 medical surgical nurses working directly with COVID-19 patients during the early phase of the pandemic. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study was reviewed by the institution's clinical research committee and determined to be exempt. A survey invitation letter with a voluntary implied consent agreement was sent to participants with a description of the research study attached to the anonymous survey. RESULTS: Nurses with specific COVID-19-related anxieties were more likely to agree that it was ethical to abandon the workplace during a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations can and ought to mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on duty to care in future pandemics and healthcare emergencies by incorporating several recommendations derived from this study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nurses , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workplace
6.
ATS Sch ; 2(2): 163-167, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365988
7.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care ; 39(4): 481-486, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286791

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Public awareness of the large mortality toll of COVID-19 particularly among elderly and frail persons is high. This public awareness represents an enhanced opportunity for early and urgent goals-of-care discussions to reduce medically ineffective care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the end-of-life experiences of hospitalized patients dying of COVID-19 with respect to identifying the clinical factors associated with utilization or non-utilization of the ICU. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of hospital outcomes using electronic medical records and individual chart review from March 15, 2020 to October 15, 2020 of every patient with a COVID-19 diagnosis who died or was admitted to hospice while hospitalized. Logistic regression multivariate analysis was used to identify the clinical and demographic factors associated with non-utilization of the ICU. RESULTS: 133/749 (18%) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients died or were admitted to hospice as a result of COVID-19. Of the 133, 66 (49.6%) had no ICU utilization. In multivariate analysis, the significant patient factors associated with non-ICU utilization were increasing age, normal body mass index, and the presence of an advanced directive calling for limited life sustaining therapies. Race and residence at time of admission (home vs. facility) were significant only in the unadjusted analyses but not in adjusted. Gender was not significant in either form of analyses. CONCLUSION: Goals of care discussions performed by an augmented palliative care team and other bedside clinicians had renewed urgency during COVID-19. Large percentages of patients and surrogates, perhaps motivated by public awareness of poor outcomes, opted not to utilize the ICU.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Am J Med ; 134(2): 151-152, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174076
9.
Chest ; 159(3): 1076-1083, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-799192

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Civil Defense/organization & administration , Health Care Rationing , Health Workforce , Public Health/trends , Resource Allocation , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Change Management , Disaster Planning , Health Care Rationing/methods , Health Care Rationing/standards , Humans , Intersectoral Collaboration , Maryland/epidemiology , Resource Allocation/ethics , Resource Allocation/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage/ethics , Triage/organization & administration
10.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237558, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-710228

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic threatens to overwhelm scarce clinical resources. Risk factors for severe illness must be identified to make efficient resource allocations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk factors for severe illness. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series. SETTING: Single-institution. PARTICIPANTS: First 117 consecutive patients hospitalized for Covid-19 from March 1 to April 12, 2020. EXPOSURE: None. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Intensive care unit admission or death. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 24.8% and average total length of stay was 11.82 days (95% CI: 10.01 to 13.63 days). 30.8% of patients required intensive care unit admission and 29.1% required mechanical ventilation. Multivariate regression identified the amount of supplemental oxygen required at admission (OR: 1.208, 95% CI: 1.011-1.443, p = .037), sputum production (OR: 6.734, 95% CI: 1.630-27.812, p = .008), insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (OR: 11.873, 95% CI: 2.218-63.555, p = .004) and chronic kidney disease (OR: 4.793, 95% CI: 1.528-15.037, p = .007) as significant risk factors for intensive care unit admission or death. Of the 48 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit or died, this occurred within 3 days of arrival in 42%, within 6 days in 71%, and within 9 days in 88% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: At our regional medical center, patients with Covid-19 had an average length of stay just under 12 days, required ICU care in 31% of cases, and had a 25% mortality rate. Patients with increased sputum production and higher supplemental oxygen requirements at admission, and insulin dependent diabetes or chronic kidney disease may be at increased risk for severe illness. A model for predicting intensive care unit admission or death with excellent discrimination was created that may aid in treatment decisions and resource allocation. Early identification of patients at increased risk for severe illness may lead to improved outcomes in patients hospitalized with Covid-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Hospitalization , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Critical Illness , Female , Health Care Rationing , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, Community , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Maryland/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL