A randomized controlled study of convalescent plasma for individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BackgroundAntibody-based strategies for COVID-19 have shown promise in prevention and treatment of early disease. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been widely used but results from randomized trials supporting its benefit in hospitalized patients with pneumonia are limited. Here, we assess the efficacy of CCP in severely ill, hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe performed a randomized control trial (PennCCP2), with 80 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, comparing up to 2 units of locally sourced CCP plus standard care versus standard care alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was comparison of a clinical severity score. Key secondary outcomes include 14- and 28-day mortality, 14- and 28-day maximum 8-point WHO ordinal score (WHO8) score, duration of supplemental oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, respiratory SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsEighty hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled at median day 6 of symptoms and day 1 of hospitalization; 60% were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. Participants had a median of 3 comorbidities, including risk factors for severe COVID-19 and immunosuppression. CCP treatment was safe and conferred significant benefit by clinical severity score (median [MED] and interquartile range [IQR] 10 [5.5-30] vs. 7 [2.75-12.25], P = 0.037) and 28-day mortality (n = 10, 26% vs. n = 2, 5%; P = 0.013). All other prespecified outcome measures showed weak evidence toward benefit of CCP.ConclusionTwo units of locally sourced CCP administered early in hospitalization to majority seronegative participants conferred a significant benefit in clinical severity score and 28-day mortality. Results suggest CCP may benefit select populations, especially those with comorbidities who are treated early.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397757.FundingUniversity of Pennsylvania.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With COVID-19-Related Critical Illness at a Learning Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery. DESIGN: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change. LIMITATIONS: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Impact of COVID-19 on inpatient clinical emergencies: A single-center experience.

AIM: Determine changes in rapid response team (RRT) activations and describe institutional adaptations made during a surge in hospitalizations for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Using prospectively collected data, we compared characteristics of RRT calls at our academic hospital from March 7 through May 31, 2020 (COVID-19 era) versus those from January 1 through March 6, 2020 (pre-COVID-19 era). We used negative binomial regression to test differences in RRT activation rates normalized to floor (non-ICU) inpatient census between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras, including the sub-era of rapid COVID-19 census surge and plateau (March 28 through May 2, 2020). RESULTS: RRT activations for respiratory distress rose substantially during the rapid COVID-19 surge and plateau (2.38 (95% CI 1.39-3.36) activations per 1000 floor patient-days v. 1.27 (0.82-1.71) during the pre-COVID-19 era; p = 0.02); all-cause RRT rates were not significantly different (5.40 (95% CI 3.94-6.85) v. 4.83 (3.86-5.80) activations per 1000 floor patient-days, respectively; p = 0.52). Throughout the COVID-19 era, respiratory distress accounted for a higher percentage of RRT activations in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients (57% vs. 28%, respectively; p = 0.001). During the surge, we adapted RRT guidelines to reduce in-room personnel and standardize personal protective equipment based on COVID-19 status and risk to providers, created decision-support pathways for respiratory emergencies that accounted for COVID-19 status uncertainty, and expanded critical care consultative support to floor teams. CONCLUSION: Increased frequency and complexity of RRT activations for respiratory distress during the COVID-19 surge prompted the creation of clinical tools and strategies that could be applied to other hospitals.

Increased Firearm Injury During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Hidden Urban Burden.

BACKGROUND: Public health measures were instituted to reduce COVID-19 spread. A decrease in total emergency department volume followed, but the impact on injury is unknown. With lockdown and social distancing potentially increasing domicile discord, we hypothesized that intentional injury increased during COVID-19, driven primarily by an increase in penetrating trauma. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of acute adult patient care in an urban Level I trauma center assessed injury patterns. Presenting patient characteristics and diagnoses from 6 weeks pre to 10 weeks post statewide stay-at-home orders (March 16, 2020) were compared, as well as with 2015-2019. Subsets were defined by intentionality (intentional vs nonintentional) and mechanism of injury (blunt vs penetrating). Fisher exact and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare proportions and means. RESULTS: There were 357 trauma patients that presented pre stay-at-home order and 480 that presented post stay-at-home order. Pre and post groups demonstrated differences in sex (35.6% vs 27.9% female; p = 0.02), age (47.4 ± 22.1 years vs 42 ± 20.3 years; p = 0.009), and race (1.4% vs 2.3% Asian; 63.3% vs 68.3% Black; 30.5% vs 22.3% White; and 4.8% vs 7.1% other; p = 0.03). Post stay-at-home order mechanism of injury revealed more intentional injury (p = 0.0008). Decreases in nonintentional trauma after adoption of social isolation paralleled declines in daily emergency department visits. Compared with earlier years, 2020 demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of intentional violent injury during the peripandemic months, especially from firearms. CONCLUSIONS: Unprecedented social isolation policies to address COVID-19 were associated with increased intentional injury, especially gun violence. Meanwhile, emergency department and nonintentional trauma visits decreased. Pandemic-related public health measures should embrace intentional injury prevention and management strategies.