ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ethnic minorities have higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 compared to White Americans. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is race/ethnicity an independent predictor of lung dysfunction following hospitalization with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN: and Methods: Patients hospitalized at the University of Virginia Medical Center with COVID-19 underwent a questionnaire within 30 days following discharge. Those who had persistent respiratory symptoms were invited to complete spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide. 128 completed pulmonary function testing at 6 months. RESULTS: Impairments in lung function were present in spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide at 6 months. The most prevalent impairments were noted in FVC (24.4%), FEV1 (20.5%), TLC (23.3%), and DLCO (20.8%). When compared between race/ethnicity groups three lung function parameters demonstrated statistically significant difference, including FEV1/FVC (p = 0.021), RV/TLC (p = 0.006) and DLCO % predicted (p = 0.002). The average difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients with respect to DLCO % predicted was 13.09 (p = 0.01) and the average difference between non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients was 9.46 (p = 0.04). Differences persisted when controlling for age, BMI, smoking status, history of chronic lung disease, ICU admission, treatment with corticosteroids, and socioeconomic status. INTERPRETATION: Long-term impairments in lung function following COVID-19 are common, occurring in roughly 22% of patients and across all three major domains of lung function. Non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity was associated with a statistically significant lower DLCO % predicted when compared to non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carbon Monoxide , Ethnicity , Hospitalization , Humans , LungABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the influence of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 during the first 120 days after hospital discharge. METHODS: Five academic centers conducted a retrospective analysis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted during March through May 2020. Survivors had access to a multidisciplinary postintensive care recovery clinic. Physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits were measured using validated instruments and compared based on ECMO status. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty two mechanically ventilated patients were compared with 46 patients cannulated for venovenous ECMO. Patients receiving ECMO were younger and traveled farther but there was no significant difference in gender, race, or body mass index. ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days [interquartile range, 19.5-41 days] vs 13 days [interquartile range, 7-20 days]) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes. Patients receiving ECMO experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01). However, survival at discharge was similar (69.6% vs 70.6%). Of the 217 survivors, 65.0% had documented follow-up within 120 days. Overall, 95.5% were residing at home, 25.7% had returned to work or usual activity, and 23.1% were still using supplemental oxygen; these rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status. Rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that COVID-19 survivors experience significant physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits following intensive care unit admission. Despite a more complex critical illness course, longer average duration of mechanical ventilation, and longer average length of stay, patients treated with venovenous ECMO had similar survival at discharge and outcomes within 120 days of discharge.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Detailed understanding of the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (CO-VID-19) has been hampered by a lack of quantitative antibody assays. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a quantitative assay for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 proteins that could be implemented in clinical and research laboratories. METHODS: The biotin-streptavidin technique was used to conjugate SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) or nucleocapsid protein to the solid phase of the ImmunoCAP. Plasma and serum samples from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 60) and samples from donors banked before the emergence of COVID-19 (n = 109) were used in the assay. SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were followed longitudinally in a subset of samples and were related to total IgG and IgG to reference antigens using an ImmunoCAP 250 platform. RESULTS: At a cutoff of 2.5 µg/mL, the assay demonstrated sensitivity and specificity exceeding 95% for IgG to both SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Among 36 patients evaluated in a post-hospital follow-up clinic, median levels of IgG to spike-RBD and nucleocapsid were 34.7 µg/mL (IQR 18-52) and 24.5 µg/mL (IQR 9-59), respectively. Among 17 patients with longitudinal samples, there was a wide variation in the magnitude of IgG responses, but generally the response to spike-RBD and to nucleocapsid occurred in parallel, with peak levels approaching 100 µg/mL, or 1% of total IgG. CONCLUSIONS: We have described a quantitative assay to measure IgG to SARS-CoV-2 that could be used in clinical and research laboratories and implemented at scale. The assay can easily be adapted to measure IgG to mutated COVID-19 proteins, has good performance characteristics, and has a readout in standardized units.