Recombinant human DNase-I improves acute respiratory distress syndrome via neutrophil extracellular trap degradation.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure is the primary cause of death in patients with COVID-19, whereas coagulopathy is associated with excessive inflammation and multiorgan failure. Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) may exacerbate inflammation and provide a scaffold for thrombus formation. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether degradation of NETs by recombinant human DNase-I (rhDNase), a safe, Food and Drug Administration-approved drug, reduces excessive inflammation, reverses aberrant coagulation, and improves pulmonary perfusion after experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Intranasal poly(I:C), a synthetic double-stranded RNA, was administered to adult mice for 3 consecutive days to simulate a viral infection, and these subjects were randomized to treatment arms, which received either an intravenous placebo or rhDNase. The effects of rhDNase on immune activation, platelet aggregation, and coagulation were assessed in mice and donor human blood. RESULTS: NETs were observed in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and within regions of hypoxic lung tissue after experimental ARDS. The administration of rhDNase mitigated peribronchiolar, perivascular, and interstitial inflammation induced by poly(I:C). In parallel, rhDNase degraded NETs, attenuated platelet-NET aggregates, reduced platelet activation, and normalized the clotting time to improve regional perfusion, as observed using gross morphology, histology, and microcomputed tomographic imaging in mice. Similarly, rhDNase reduced NETs and attenuated platelet activation in human blood. CONCLUSION: NETs exacerbate inflammation and promote aberrant coagulation by providing a scaffold for aggregated platelets after experimental ARDS. Intravenous administration of rhDNase degrades NETs and attenuates coagulopathy in ARDS, providing a promising translational approach to improve pulmonary structure and function after ARDS.

Duration of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 shedding among patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Patterns of shedding replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in severe or critical COVID-19 are not well-characterized. We investigated the duration of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 shedding in upper and lower airway specimens from patients with severe or critical COVID-19. METHODS: We enrolled patients with active or recent severe or critical COVID-19 who were admitted to a tertiary care hospital intensive care unit (ICU) or long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) because of COVID-19. Respiratory specimens were collected at predefined intervals and tested for SARS-CoV-2 using virus culture and RT-qPCR. Clinical and epidemiologic metadata were reviewed. RESULTS: We collected 529 respiratory specimens from 78 patients. Replication-competent virus was detected in 4 of 11 (36.3%) immunocompromised patients up to 45 days after symptom onset, and in 1 of 67 (14.9%) immunocompetent patients 10 days after symptom onset (P = 0.001). All culture-positive patients were in the ICU cohort and had persistent or recurrent symptoms of COVID-19. Median time from symptom onset to first specimen collection was 15 days (range, 6-45) for ICU patients and 58.5 days (range, 34-139) for LTACH patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 40 of 50 (80%) ICU patients and 7 of 28 (25%) LTACH patients. CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromise and persistent or recurrent symptoms were associated with shedding of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2, supporting the need for improving respiratory symptoms in addition to time as criteria for discontinuation of transmission-based precautions. Our results suggest that the period of potential infectiousness among immunocompetent patients with severe or critical COVID-19 may be similar to that reported for patients with milder disease.

Genomic investigation to identify the source of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel

Background: Contact tracing alone is often inadequate to determine the source of healthcare personnel (HCP) COVID-19 when SARS-CoV-2 is widespread in the community. We combined whole-genome sequencing (WGS) with traditional epidemiologic analysis to investigate the frequency with which patients or other HCP with symptomatic COVID-19 acted as the source of HCP infection at a large tertiary-care center early in the pandemic. Methods: Cohort samples were selected from patients and HCP with PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection from a period with complete retention of samples (March 14, 2021–April 10, 2020) at Rush University Medical Center, a 664-bed hospital in Chicago, Illinois. During this period, testing was limited to symptomatic patients and HCP. Recommended respiratory equipment for HCP evolved under guidance, including a 19-day period when medical face masks were recommended for COVID-19 care except for aerosol-generating procedures. Viral RNA was extracted and sequenced (NovaSeq, Illumina) from remnant nasopharyngeal swab samples in M4RT viral transport medium. Genomes with >90% coverage underwent cluster detection using a 2 single-nucleotide variant genetic distance cutoff. Genomic clusters were independently evaluated for valid epidemiologic links by 2 infectious diseases physicians (with a third adjudicator) using metadata extracted from the electronic medical record and according to predetermined criteria (Table 1). Results: In total, 1,031 SARS-CoV-2 sequences were analyzed, identifying 49 genomic clusters with HCP (median, 8;range, 2–43 members per cluster;total, 268 patients and 115 HCP) (Fig. 1). Also, 20,190 flowsheet activities were documented for cohort HCP and patient interactions, including 686 instances in which a cohort HCP contributed to a cohort patient's chart. Most HCP infections were considered not healthcare associated (88 of 115, 76.5%). We did not identify any strong linkages for patient-to-HCP transmission. Moreover, 13 HCP cases (11.3%) were attributed to patient source (weak linkage). Also, 14 HCP cases (12.2%) were attributed to HCP source (11 strong and 3 weak linkages). Weak linkages were due to lack of epidemiologic data for HCP location, particularly nonclinical staff (eg, an environmental service worker who lacked location documentation to rule out patient-specific contact). Agreement for epidemiologic linkage between the 2 evaluators was high (κ, 0.91). Conclusions: Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we found that most HCP COVID-19 infections were not healthcare associated. We found weak evidence to support symptomatic patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and stronger evidence for HCP-to-HCP transmission. Large genomic clusters without plausible epidemiologic links were identified, reflecting the limited utility of genomic surveillance alone to characterize chains of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during extensive community spread.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Genomic Investigation to Identify Sources of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Among Healthcare Personnel in an Acute Care Hospital.

Background: Identifying the source of healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is important to guide occupational safety efforts. We used a combined whole genome sequencing (WGS) and epidemiologic approach to investigate the source of HCP COVID-19 at a tertiary-care center early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Remnant nasopharyngeal swab samples from HCP and patients with polymerase chain reaction-proven COVID-19 from a period with complete sample retention (14 March 2020 to 10 April 2020) at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, underwent viral RNA extraction and WGS. Genomes with >90% coverage underwent cluster detection using a 2 single-nucleotide variant genetic distance cutoff. Genomic clusters were evaluated for epidemiologic linkages, with strong linkages defined by evidence of time/location overlap. Results: We analyzed 1031 sequences, identifying 49 clusters that included ≥1 HCP (265 patients, 115 HCP). Most HCP infections were not healthcare associated (88/115 [76.5%]). We did not identify any strong epidemiologic linkages for patient-to-HCP transmission. Thirteen HCP cases (11.3%) were attributed to a potential patient source (weak evidence involving nonclinical staff that lacked location data to prove or disprove contact with patients in same cluster). Fourteen HCP cases (12.2%) were attributed to HCP source (11 with strong evidence). Conclusions: Using genomic and epidemiologic data, we found that most HCP severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections were not healthcare associated. We did not find strong evidence of patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

NSAIDs and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been discouraged for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, fearing that they could increase the risk of infection or the severity of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Original studies providing information on exposure to NSAIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes were retrieved and were included in a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis with Cochrane Revue Manager (REVMAN 5.4), using inverse variance odds ratio (OR) with random- or fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 92,853 papers mentioning COVID-19, 266 mentioned NSAIDs and 61 mentioned ibuprofen; 19 papers had analysable data. Three papers described NSAID exposure and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, five papers described the risk of hospital admission in positive patients, 10 papers described death, and six papers described severe composite outcomes. Five papers studied exposure to ibuprofen and death. Using random-effects models, there was no excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (OR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.05). In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, exposure to NSAIDs was not associated with excess risk of hospital admission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.17), death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98), or severe outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.90-1.44). With ibuprofen, there was no increased risk of death (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13). Using a fixed-effect model did not modify the results, nor did the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The theoretical risks of NSAIDs or ibuprofen in SARS-CoV-2 infection are not confirmed by observational data.

Comparison of Two Commercial Molecular Tests and a Laboratory-Developed Modification of the CDC 2019-nCoV Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

We compared the ability of 2 commercial molecular amplification assays (RealTime SARS-CoV-2 on the m2000 [abbreviated ACOV; Abbott] and ID Now COVID-19 [abbreviated IDNOW; Abbott]) and a laboratory-developed test (modified CDC 2019-nCoV reverse transcriptase PCR [RT-PCR] assay with RNA extraction by eMag [bioMérieux] and amplification on QuantStudio 6 or ABI 7500 real-time PCR system [abbreviated CDC COV]) to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in upper respiratory tract specimens. Discrepant results were adjudicated by medical record review. A total of 200 nasopharyngeal swab specimens in viral transport medium (VTM) were collected from symptomatic patients between 27 March and 9 April 2020. Results were concordant for 167 specimens (83.5% overall agreement), including 94 positive and 73 negative specimens. The ACOV assay yielded 33 additional positive results, 25 of which were also positive by the CDC COV assay but not by the IDNOW assay. In a follow-up evaluation, 97 patients for whom a dry nasal swab specimen yielded negative results by IDNOW had a paired nasopharyngeal swab specimen collected in VTM and tested by the ACOV assay; SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 13 (13.4%) of these specimens. Medical record review deemed all discrepant results to be true positives. The IDNOW test was the easiest to perform and provided a result in the shortest time but detected fewer cases of COVID-19. The ACOV assay detected more cases of COVID-19 than the CDC COV or IDNOW assays.

Considerations for pharmacoepidemiological analyses in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered several hypotheses regarding use of specific medicines and risk of infection as well as prognosis. Under these unique circumstances, rapid answers require quick engagement in data collection and analyses; however, appropriate design and conduct of pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed to generate valid and reliable evidence. In this paper, endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, we provide methodological considerations for the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies in relation to the pandemic across eight domains: (1) timeliness of evidence, including the need to prioritise some questions over others in the acute phase of the pandemic; (2) the need to align observational and interventional research on efficacy; (3) the specific challenges related to "real-time epidemiology" during an ongoing pandemic; (4) what design to use to answer a specific question; (5) considerations on the definition of exposures; (6) what covariates to collect; (7) considerations on the definition of outcomes; and (8) the need for transparent reporting.