Evaluation of the host immune response assay SeptiCyte RAPID for potential triage of COVID-19 patients.

Tools for the evaluation of COVID-19 severity would help clinicians with triage decisions, especially the decision whether to admit to ICU. The aim of this study was to evaluate SeptiCyte RAPID, a host immune response assay (Immunexpress, Seattle USA) as a triaging tool for COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization and potentially ICU care. SeptiCyte RAPID employs a host gene expression signature consisting of the ratio of expression levels of two immune related mRNAs, PLA2G7 and PLAC8, measured from whole blood samples. Blood samples from 146 adult SARS-CoV-2 (+) patients were collected within 48 h of hospital admission in PAXgene blood RNA tubes at Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain, between July 28th and December 1st, 2020. Data on demographics, vital signs, clinical chemistry parameters, radiology, interventions, and SeptiCyte RAPID were collected and analyzed with bioinformatics methods. The performance of SeptiCyte RAPID for COVID-19 severity assessment and ICU admission was evaluated, relative to the comparator of retrospective clinical assessment by the Hospital del Mar clinical care team. In conclusion, SeptiCyte RAPID was able to stratify COVID-19 cases according to clinical severity: critical vs. mild (AUC = 0.93, p < 0.0001), critical vs. moderate (AUC = 0.77, p = 0.002), severe vs. mild (AUC = 0.85, p = 0.0003), severe vs. moderate (AUC = 0.63, p = 0.05). This discrimination was significantly better (by AUC or p-value) than could be achieved by CRP, lactate, creatine, IL-6, or D-dimer. Some of the critical or severe cases had "early" blood draws (before ICU admission; n = 33). For these cases, when compared to moderate and mild cases not in ICU (n = 37), SeptiCyte RAPID had AUC = 0.78 (p = 0.00012). In conclusion, SeptiCyte RAPID was able to stratify COVID-19 cases according to clinical severity as defined by the WHO COVID-19 Clinical Management Living Guidance of January 25th, 2021. Measurements taken early (before a patient is considered for ICU admission) suggest that high SeptiScores could aid in predicting the need for later ICU admission.

The parental psychological distress caused by separation from their critically ill child during the COVID-19 pandemic: A tale of two cities

Introduction A child’s critical illness is a stressful event for the entire family, causing significant emotional distress among parents and changes to family functioning. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has abruptly caused modifications in visitation policies of Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in many countries. We hypothesized that caregivers with no or severely restricted access to PICUs would demonstrate increased psychological distress as compared to those who had limitless access (LA) to PICUs. Methods Sociodemographic variables, levels of psychological distress, ratings of family functioning, and ability to cope with stressful events were collected with an online survey in a group of caregivers after their child’s hospitalization. Ratings of psychological distress were compared between caregivers with no/severely restricted (NA) and with LA to PICUs. Results Measures of depression, anxiety, and global severity index (GSI) of psychological distress were significantly higher in NA caregivers as compared to LA. Among demographic characteristics of the sample, only gender influenced the severity of psychological symptoms: women showed an increased score on levels of somatization, depression, anxiety, and GSI. Avoidant coping style positively correlated with measures of depression. Univariate General Linear Model (GLM) analyses of the effects of sex, age, visitation policies of PICUs, and score of avoidant coping strategies on measures of psychological distress confirmed a significant univariate effect of no access to PICUs on parents’ psychopathological scores. Conclusion Restrictions imposed on visitation policies in PICU during the pandemic negatively impacted families’ psychological wellbeing. A balance between the safety of patients, families, and health care professionals and meeting the needs of families is of utmost importance.

Outpatient Opioid and Naloxone Prescribing Practices at an Academic Medical Center during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

While improving opioid safety has been a national priority, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with increased rates of opioid overdose. The present study characterized outpatient opioid and naloxone prescribing patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients receiving opioid therapy between August 2020 through October 2020 from outpatient clinics within a Texas health system. The primary outcome was naloxone co-prescription during the study period or within the year prior. During the study period, 1,368 patients received an opioid prescription, most of which were prescribed for chronic pain treatment (63.0%). Most opioid prescriptions (91.5%) were written for < 50 MME/day. For prescriptions written for acute pain, 78% were written for ≤ 10 days supply. While 31.1% of patients received gabapentinoid prescriptions, few (7.9%) received benzodiazepine or Z-hypnotic prescriptions. Twenty-two (1.6%) patients were co-prescribed naloxone. In this study, naloxone was rarely prescribed for outpatients receiving opioid prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health systems should continue to prioritize adherence to evidence-based clinical guidelines and increase access to naloxone.