Combination of Baricitinib plus Remdesivir and Dexamethasone improves time to recovery and mortality among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 infection (preprint)

Background There seems to be a gap in the therapeutic options for severe Covid-19 pneumonia. Though the beneficial effect of combination treatment with baricitnib and remdesivir in accelerating clinical status improvement is described, the impact of the triple therapy with baricitinib + remdesivir/dexamethasone is not known. Methods A retrospective observational study comparing the effect of baricitinib plus standard treatment (remdesivir and dexamethasone) with standard therapy in patients requiring ≥ 5 L/min O2 was conducted. The primary outcome was to compared time to recovery in both groups, and the secondary outcomes was to determine mortality rate at discharge. Results Of 457 patients hospitalized during the study period, 51 patients received standard treatment while 88 patients received baricitinib plus standard treatment. In baricitinib group, the rate ratio of recovery was 1.28 (95%CI 0.84-1.94, p=0.24) with a reduction in median time to recovery of 3 days compared to standard treatment group. Subgroup analysis based on Ordinal Scale showed reduction in median time to recovery by 4 and 2 days with rate ratio of recovery of 2.95 (1.03-8.42, p =0.04) and 1.80 (1.09-2.98, p=0.02) in Ordinal Scale 5 and 6 respectively. No benefit was found in the Ordinal Scale 7 subgroup. An overall decrease in rate (15.9% vs 31.4% p=0.03) a likelihood (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.18-0.94, p=0.03) of mortality was observed in the baricitinib group. Bacteremia and thrombosis were noted in the Baricitinib group, but comparable with the Standard of care group. Conclusion Baricitinib with standard therapy reduced time to recovery and offer mortality benefit in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.”

High Initial Titres of Anti-Spike Antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 Infection is Associated with Faster Decay Rates at Four Months Follow-Up (preprint)

Background Dynamics of humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens following infection suggests an initial decay of antibody followed by subsequent stabilization. We aim to understand the longitudinal humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein and spike (S) protein and to evaluate their correlation to clinical symptoms among healthcare workers (HCW). Methods In this cross-sectional longitudinal cohort study done in two phases over four months, HCW underwent serial qualitative serology testing for anti-N antibody, quantitative MSH-ELISA to detect Receptor Binding Domain and full-length S reactive antibodies and completed online surveys about COVID-19 related symptoms and healthcare/community exposure. Results Anti-N antibody positivity was 27% and anti-S positivity was 28% in Phase 1. In Phase 2 anti-S titres were higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic positive subjects in Phase 1. Marginally higher titers were seen in asymptomatic compared to the symptomatic positive subgroup in Phase 2. A positive correlation was noted between age, number and duration of symptoms, and Phase 1 anti-S antibody titre. A strong correlation was observed between Phase 1 titers and decay of anti-S antibody titres between the two phases. Significant correlation with rate of decay was also noted with fever, GI symptoms, and total number and duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusions Higher initial anti-S antibody titres were associated with larger number and longer duration of symptoms as well as faster decay during the two time points.

Empiric use of Anticoagulation in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study of Risks and Benefits (preprint)

Background: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate a higher risk of developing thromboembolism. Anticoagulation (AC) has been proposed for high-risk patients, even without confirmed thromboembolism. However, benefits and risks of AC are not well assessed due to insufficient clinical data. We performed a retrospective analysis of outcomes from AC in a large population of COVID-19 patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1189 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 15 and May 15, 2020, with primary outcomes of mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and major bleeding. Patients who received therapeutic AC for known indications were excluded. Propensity score matching of baseline characteristics and admission parameters was performed to minimize bias between cohorts. Results: The analysis cohort included 973 patients. Forty-four patients who received therapeutic AC for confirmed thromboembolic events and atrial fibrillation were excluded. After propensity score matching, 133 patients received empiric therapeutic AC while 215 received low dose prophylactic AC. Overall, there was no difference in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (73.7% versus 65.6%, p = 0.133) or mortality (60.2% versus 60.9%, p = 0.885). However, among patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, empiric therapeutic AC was an independent predictor of lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.476, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.345-0.657, p < 0.001) with longer median survival (14 days vs 8 days, p < 0.001), but these associations were not observed in the overall cohort (p = 0.063). Additionally, no significant difference in mortality was found between patients receiving empiric therapeutic AC versus prophylactic AC in various subgroups with different D-dimer level cutoffs. Patients who received therapeutic AC showed a higher incidence of major bleeding (13.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with a HAS-BLED score of ≥2 had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.482, 95% CI 1.110-1.980, p = 0.008), while those with a score of ≥3 had a higher risk of major bleeding (Odds ratio: 1.883, CI: 1.114-3.729, p = 0.016). Conclusion: Empiric use of therapeutic AC conferred survival benefit to patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, but did not show benefit in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Careful bleeding risk estimation should be pursued before considering escalation of AC intensity.    

Impact of Residential Neighborhood and Race/Ethnicity on Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the Bronx (preprint)

The socially vulnerable have been most affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic, similar to the aftermath of any major disaster. Racial and social minorities are experiencing a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of residential location/community and race/ethnicity on outcomes of COVID-19 infection among hospitalized patients within the Bronx. This was a single center retrospective observational cohort study that included SARS-CoV2 positive adult residents of the Bronx (stratified as residents of South Bronx vs Rest of Bronx) hospitalized between March-May 2020. Data extracted from hospital electronic medical records included residential addresses, race, comorbidities, and insurance details. Comorbidity burden other clinical and laboratory details were also assessed to determine their correlation to COVID-19 severity of illness and outcomes of mortality and length of stay. As expected, the COVID-19 pandemic differentially affected outcomes in those in the more socially disadvantaged area of the South Bronx versus the rest of the Bronx borough. Residents of the South Bronx had a significantly higher comorbidity burden and had public insurance to access medical care in comparison to the remainder of the Bronx. Interestingly, for the patient population studied there was no observed difference in 30-day mortality by race/ethnicity among those infected with COVID-19 in spite of the increased disease burden observed. This adds an interesting perspective to the current literature, and highlights the need to address the social/economic factors contributing to health access disparity to reduce the adverse impact of COVID-19 in these communities.

Prone Positioning in Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome due to COVID-19: A Cohort Study and Analysis of Physiology (preprint)

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but it is unknown whether prone positioning improves outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19.METHODS: A cohort study at a New York City hospital at the peak of the early pandemic in the United States, under crisis conditions. The aim was to determine the benefit of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included changes in physiologic parameters. Fine-Gray competing risks models with stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW) were used to determine the effect of prone positioning on outcomes. In addition, linear mixed effects models (LMM) were used to assess changes in physiology with prone positioning.RESULTS: Out of 335 participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated, 62 underwent prone positioning, 199 met prone positioning criteria and served as controls and 74 were excluded. The intervention and control groups were similar at baseline. In multivariate-adjusted competing risks models with sIPTW, prone positioning was significantly associated with reduced mortality (SHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46-0.80, P < 0.005). Using LMM to evaluate the impact of positioning maneuvers on physiological parameters, the oxygenation-saturation index was significantly improved during days 1-3 (P < 0.01) whereas oxygenation-saturation index (OSI), oxygenation-index (OI) and arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) were significantly improved during days 4-7 (P < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 is associated with reduced mortality and improved physiologic parameters. One in-hospital death could be averted for every eight patients treated. Replicating results and scaling the intervention are important, but prone positioning may represented an additional therapeutic option in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.