Impact of Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill Surgical Patients with or without Solid Organ Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients, especially those who have undergone solid organ transplantation (SOT), are at risk of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). The outcome relevance of adequately treated putative IPA (pIPA) is a matter of debate. The aim of this study is to assess the outcome relevance of pIPA in a cohort of critically ill patients with and without SOT. METHODS: Data from 121 surgical critically ill patients with pIPA (n = 30) or non-pIPA (n = 91) were included. Cox regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for mortality and unfavourable outcomes after 28 and 90 days. RESULTS: Mortality rates at 28 days were similar across the whole cohort of patients (pIPA: 31% vs. non-pIPA: 27%) and did not differ in the subgroup of patients after SOT (pIPA: 17% vs. non-pIPA: 22%). A higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and evidence of bacteraemia were identified as risk factors for mortality and unfavourable outcome, whereas pIPA itself was not identified as an independent predictor for poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately treated pIPA did not increase the risk of death or an unfavourable outcome in this mixed cohort of critically ill patients with or without SOT, whereas higher disease severity and bacteraemia negatively affected the outcome.

Interleukin-3 protects against viral pneumonia in sepsis by enhancing plasmacytoid dendritic cell recruitment into the lungs and T cell priming

Rationale Sepsis, a global health burden, is often complicated by viral infections leading to increased long-term morbidity and mortality. Interleukin-3 (IL-3) has been identified as an important mediator amplifying acute inflammation in sepsis;however, its function in the host response to viral infections during sepsis remains elusive. Objectives To investigate the role of IL-3 during viral pneumonia in sepsis. Methods We included septic patients from two different cohorts and used in vitro and in vivo assays. The obtained data were substantiated using a second model (SARS-CoV-2 infections). Measurements and main results Low plasma IL-3 levels were associated with increased herpes simplex virus (HSV) airway infections in septic patients, resulting in reduced overall survival. Likewise, Il-3-deficient septic mice were more susceptible to pulmonary HSV-1 infection and exhibited higher pulmonary inflammation than control mice. Mechanistically, IL-3 increases innate antiviral immunity by promoting the recruitment of circulating plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) into the airways and by enhancing pDC-mediated T cell activation upon viral stimulation. Interestingly, the ability of IL-3 to improve adaptive immunity was confirmed in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Conclusion Our study identifies IL-3 as a predictive disease marker for viral reactivation in sepsis and reveals that IL-3 improves antiviral immunity by enhancing the recruitment and the function of pDCs.

Interleukin-3 protects against viral pneumonia in sepsis by enhancing plasmacytoid dendritic cell recruitment into the lungs and T cell priming.

Rationale: Sepsis, a global health burden, is often complicated by viral infections leading to increased long-term morbidity and mortality. Interleukin-3 (IL-3) has been identified as an important mediator amplifying acute inflammation in sepsis; however, its function in the host response to viral infections during sepsis remains elusive. Objectives: To investigate the role of IL-3 during viral pneumonia in sepsis. Methods: We included septic patients from two different cohorts and used in vitro and in vivo assays. The obtained data were substantiated using a second model (SARS-CoV-2 infections). Measurements and main results: Low plasma IL-3 levels were associated with increased herpes simplex virus (HSV) airway infections in septic patients, resulting in reduced overall survival. Likewise, Il-3-deficient septic mice were more susceptible to pulmonary HSV-1 infection and exhibited higher pulmonary inflammation than control mice. Mechanistically, IL-3 increases innate antiviral immunity by promoting the recruitment of circulating plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) into the airways and by enhancing pDC-mediated T cell activation upon viral stimulation. Interestingly, the ability of IL-3 to improve adaptive immunity was confirmed in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Conclusion: Our study identifies IL-3 as a predictive disease marker for viral reactivation in sepsis and reveals that IL-3 improves antiviral immunity by enhancing the recruitment and the function of pDCs.

D-dimer levels in non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability and thrombo-inflammation are the main reasons for death in COVID-19 patients. It is unclear whether there is a difference between D-dimer levels in patients without or with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov databases looking for studies reporting D-dimer levels in patients without or with COVID-19 ARDS. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, and mortality data at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: We included 12 retrospective and 3 prospective studies with overall 2,828 patients, of whom 1,404 (49.6%) had non-COVID-19 ARDS and 1,424 had COVID-19 ARDS. D-dimer levels were not significantly higher in non-COVID-19 ARDS than in COVID-19 ARDS patients (mean 7.65 mg/L vs. mean 6.20 mg/L MD 0.88 [CI: -0.61 to 2.38] p = 0.25; I² = 85%) while the length of hospital stay was shorter (non-COVID-19 mean 37.4 days vs. COVID-19 mean 48.5 days, MD -10.92 [CI: -16.71 to -5.14] p < 0.001; I² = 44%). No difference in mortality was observed: non-COVID-19 ARDS 418/1167 (35.8%) vs. COVID-19 ARDS 467/1201 (38.8%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the mean D-dimer levels between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

Increased prevalence of clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) leads to higher mortality, carries a cardiovascular risk and alters inflammation. All three aspects harbor overlaps with the clinical manifestation of COVID-19. This study aimed to identify the impact of CHIP on COVID-19 pathophysiology. 90 hospitalized patients were analyzed for CHIP. In addition, their disease course and outcome were evaluated. With a prevalence of 37.8%, the frequency of a CHIP-driver mutation was significantly higher than the prevalence expected based on median age (17%). CHIP increases the risk of hospitalization in the course of the disease but has no age-independent impact on the outcome within the group of hospitalized patients. Especially in younger patients (45 - 65 years), CHIP was associated with persistent lymphopenia. In older patients (> 65 years), on the other hand, CHIP-positive patients developed neutrophilia in the long run. To what extent increased values of cardiac biomarkers are caused by CHIP independent of age could not be elaborated solely based on this study. In conclusion, our results indicate an increased susceptibility to a severe course of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization associated with CHIP. Secondly, they link it to a differentially regulated cellular immune response under the pressure of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hence, a patient's CHIP-status bears the potential to serve as biomarker for risk stratification and to early guide treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins in critical COVID-19: a multicentre propensity-weighted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A profound inflammation-mediated lung injury with long-term acute respiratory distress and high mortality is one of the major complications of critical COVID-19. Immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enriched immunoglobulins seem especially capable of mitigating the inflicted inflammatory harm. However, the efficacy of intravenous IgM-enriched preparations in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is largely unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, 316 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were treated in ten German and Austrian ICUs between May 2020 and April 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analysis was performed by Cox regression models. Covariate adjustment was performed by propensity score weighting using machine learning-based SuperLearner to overcome the selection bias due to missing randomization. In addition, a subgroup analysis focusing on different treatment regimens and patient characteristics was performed. RESULTS: Of the 316 ICU patients, 146 received IgM-enriched immunoglobulins and 170 cases did not, which served as controls. There was no survival difference between the two groups in terms of mortality at 30 days in the overall cohort (HRadj: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.25; p = 0.374). An improved 30-day survival in patients without mechanical ventilation at the time of the immunoglobulin treatment did not reach statistical significance (HRadj: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.08; p = 0.063). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroup when a daily dose of ≥ 15 g and a duration of ≥ 3 days of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins were applied (HRadj: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.03; p = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Although we cannot prove a statistically reliable effect of intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins, the confidence intervals may suggest a clinically relevant effect in certain subgroups. Here, an early administration (i.e. in critically ill but not yet mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients) and a dose of ≥ 15 g for at least 3 days may confer beneficial effects without concerning safety issues. However, these findings need to be validated in upcoming randomized clinical trials. Trial registration DRKS00025794 , German Clinical Trials Register, https://www.drks.de . Registered 6 July 2021.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination. CONCLUSIONS: Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

An Outpatient Management Strategy Using a Coronataxi Digital Early Warning System Reduces Coronavirus Disease 2019 Mortality.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused sudden, severe strain to healthcare systems. Better outpatient management is required to save lives, manage resources effectively, and prepare for future pandemics. Methods: The Coronataxi digital early warning (CDEW) system deployed in Rhein-Neckar County and Heidelberg, Germany is an outpatient care system consisting of remote digital monitoring via a mobile application, a medical doctor dashboard, and medical care delivery to COVID-19 patients in home quarantine when indicated. Patients reported their symptoms, temperature, breathing rate, oxygen saturation, and pulse via the app. This single-center cohort study compared outcomes of the population with and without using the CDEW system. The primary outcome was mortality; the secondary outcomes were hospitalization, duration of hospitalization, intensive care therapy, and mechanical ventilation. Results: Mortality rate was 3- to 4-fold lower and hospitalization rate was higher in the CDEW cohort (459 patients) compared with the cohort without CDEW in the same test area and other regions (Mannheim, Karlsruhe town, Karlsruhe district, and Germany), (mortality rate: 0.65% [95% confidence interval {CI}, .13%-1.90%] versus 2.16%, 2.32%, 2.48%, 2.82% and 2.76%, respectively, P < .05 for all; hospitalization rate: 14.81% [95% CI, 11.69%-18.40%] versus 6.89%, 6.93%, 6.59%, 6.15%, and 7.22%, respectively, P < .001 for all). The median duration of hospitalization in the CDEW cohort was significantly lower compared with a national sentinel cohort (6 days [interquartile range {IQR}, 4-9.75 days] versus 10 days [IQR, 5-19 days]; Z = -3.156; P = .002). A total of 1.96% patients needed intensive care and 1.09% were mechanically ventilated. Conclusions: The CDEW system significantly reduced COVID-19 mortality and duration of hospitalization and can be applied to the management of future pandemics.

An outpatient management strategy using a Coronataxi digital early warning (CDEW) system reduces COVID-19 mortality

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused sudden, severe strain to healthcare systems. Better outpatient management is required to save lives, manage resources effectively and prepare for future pandemics. Methods The Coronataxi digital early warning (CDEW) system deployed in Rhein-Neckar County and Heidelberg, Germany is an outpatient care system consisting of remote digital monitoring via a mobile application, a medical doctor dashboard and medical care delivery to COVID-19 patients in home quarantine when indicated. Patients reported their symptoms, temperature, breathing rate, oxygen saturation, and pulse via the app. This single-center cohort study compared outcomes of the population with and without using the CDEW system. The primary outcome was mortality;the secondary outcomes were hospitalization, duration of hospitalization, intensive care therapy and mechanical ventilation. Results Mortality rate was 3-4-fold lower and hospitalization rate was higher in the CDEW cohort (459 patients) compared to the cohort without CDEW in the same test area and other regions (Mannheim, Karlsruhe town, Karlsruhe district, and Germany), (mortality rate: 0.65% (95%CI: 0.13% - 1.90%) versus 2.16%, 2.32%, 2.48%, 2.82% and 2.76%, respectively, p<.05 for all;hospitalization rate: 14.81% (95%CI: 11.69% - 18.40%) versus 6.89%, 6.93%, 6.59%, 6.15% and 7.22%, respectively, p<.001 for all). The median duration of hospitalization in the CDEW cohort was significantly lower compared to a national sentinel cohort (6(4-9.75) versus 10(5-19) days, Z=-3.156, p=.002). 1.96% patients needed intensive care and 1.09% were mechanically ventilated. Conclusions The CDEW system significantly reduced COVID-19 mortality and duration of hospitalization and can be applied to the management of future pandemics.

[Treatment of sepsis-induced coagulopathy : Results of a Germany-wide survey in intensive care units]. / Therapie der sepsisinduzierten Koagulopathie : Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Umfrage auf Intensivstationen.

BACKGROUND: In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed. METHODS: In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. RESULTS: A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.

Coagulopathies in Intensive Care Medicine: Balancing Act between Thrombosis and Bleeding.

Patient Blood Management advocates an individualized treatment approach, tailored to each patient's needs, in order to reduce unnecessary exposure to allogeneic blood products. The optimization of hemostasis and minimization of blood loss is of high importance when it comes to critical care patients, as coagulopathies are a common phenomenon among them and may significantly impact morbidity and mortality. Treating coagulopathies is complex as thrombotic and hemorrhagic conditions may coexist and the medications at hand to modulate hemostasis can be powerful. The cornerstones of coagulation management are an appropriate patient evaluation, including the individual risk of bleeding weighed against the risk of thrombosis, a proper diagnostic work-up of the coagulopathy's etiology, treatment with targeted therapies, and transfusion of blood product components when clinically indicated in a goal-directed manner. In this article, we will outline various reasons for coagulopathy in critical care patients to highlight the aspects that need special consideration. The treatment options outlined in this article include anticoagulation, anticoagulant reversal, clotting factor concentrates, antifibrinolytic agents, desmopressin, fresh frozen plasma, and platelets. This article outlines concepts with the aim of the minimization of complications associated with coagulopathies in critically ill patients. Hereditary coagulopathies will be omitted in this review.

Aspergillosis: Emerging risk groups in critically ill patients.

Information on invasive aspergillosis (IA) and other invasive filamentous fungal infections is limited in non-neutropenic patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and presenting with no classic IA risk factors. This review is based on the critical appraisal of relevant literature, on the authors' own experience and on discussions that took place at a consensus conference. It aims to review risk factors favoring aspergillosis in ICU patients, with a special emphasis on often overlooked or neglected conditions. In the ICU patients, corticosteroid use to treat underlying conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, or severe COVID-19, represents a cardinal risk factor for IA. Important additional host risk factors are COPD, decompensated cirrhosis, liver failure, and severe viral pneumonia (influenza, COVID-19). Clinical observations indicate that patients admitted to the ICU because of sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome are more likely to develop probable or proven IA, suggesting that sepsis could also be a possible direct risk factor for IA, as could small molecule inhibitors used in oncology. There are no recommendations for prophylaxis in ICU patients; posaconazole mold-active primary prophylaxis is used in some centers according to guidelines for other patient populations and IA treatment in critically ill patients is basically the same as in other patient populations. A combined evaluation of clinical signs and imaging, classical biomarkers such as the GM assay, and fungal cultures examination, remain the best option to assess response to treatment. LAY SUMMARY: The use of corticosteroids and the presence of co-morbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute or chronic advanced liver disease, or severe viral pneumonia caused by influenza or Covid-19, may increase the risk of invasive aspergillosis in intensive care unit patients.

Plasma Exchange in Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Single-Center Experience.

IMPORTANCE: Recent evidence suggests a multilevel inflammatory syndrome as a driving factor in some of the most severely ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with overlapping features to other hyperinflammatory or autoimmune diseases. Therefore, plasma exchange is considered as potential therapy in these patients. OBJECTIVES: We characterize the longitudinal therapeutic efficacy and safety profile of plasma exchange in critically ill patients with clinical and laboratory evidences of coronavirus disease 2019-related immunopathology. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retropsective case-control study of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients treated with plasma exchange at Heidelberg University Hospital between March and December 2020. Plasma exchange-treated patients were compared with coronavirus disease 2019 patients on standard therapy matched for age, gender, disease severity, and features of hyperinflammatory syndrome. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Mortality rate and course of clinical and laboratory parameters in response to plasma exchange were assessed in coronavirus disease 2019 patients and in patients on standard care. A plasma volume of 50 mL per kg body weight or a maximum of 4 L was exchanged. RESULTS: In total, 28 critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients were treated with a median of three plasma exchange procedures per patient. No relevant complications occurred during plasma exchange therapy. Inflammatory and biochemical markers of end-organ damage and endothelial activation were significantly reduced following plasma exchange together with normalization of body temperature, improved pulmonary function, and reduced vasopressor demand. Most importantly, these improvements were maintained after the last plasma exchange. In contrast, no such effects were observed in the control group, although baseline clinical and laboratory parameters were comparable. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 30-day survival in the plasma exchange group compared with the control group (67.9% vs 42.9%; p = 0.044). In a multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.11-0.68; p = 0.005) with plasma exchange versus standard care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our data provide further evidence for plasma exchange as a novel therapeutic strategy in a subset of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients by potentially reversing the complex coronavirus disease 2019 immunopathology. Randomized controlled trials are underway to confirm these positive results.

A Randomized Open label Phase-II Clinical Trial with or without Infusion of Plasma from Subjects after Convalescence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in High-Risk Patients with Confirmed Severe SARS-CoV-2 Disease (RECOVER): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives • To assess the time from randomisation until an improvement within 84 days defined as two points on a seven point ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospital admission by infusion of plasma from subjects after convalescence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or standard of care. Secondary objectives • To assess overall survival, and the overall survival rate at 28 56 and 84 days. • To assess SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and load as well as antibody titres. • To assess the percentage of patients that required mechanical ventilation. • To assess time from randomisation until discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Randomised, open-label, multicenter phase II trial, designed to assess the clinical outcome of SARS-CoV-2 disease in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) following treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma or standard of care. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk patients >18 years of age hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection in 10-15 university medical centres will be included. High-risk is defined as SARS-CoV-2 positive infection with Oxygen saturation at ≤ 94% at ambient air with additional risk features as categorised in 4 groups: • Group 1, pre-existing or concurrent hematological malignancy and/or active cancer therapy (incl. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery) within the last 24 months or less. • Group 2, chronic immunosuppression not meeting the criteria of group 1. • Group 3, age ≥ 50 - 75 years meeting neither the criteria of group 1 nor group 2 and at least one of these criteria: Lymphopenia < 0.8 x G/l and/or D-dimer > 1µg/mL. • Group 4, age ≥ 75 years meeting neither the criteria of group 1 nor group 2. Observation time for all patients is expected to be at least 3 months after entry into the study. Patients receive convalescent plasma for two days (day 1 and day 2) or standard of care. For patients in the standard arm, cross over is allowed from day 10 in case of not improving or worsening clinical condition. Nose/throat swabs for determination of viral load are collected at day 0 and day 1 (before first CP administration) and subsequently at day 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 28 or until discharge. Serum for SARS-Cov-2 diagnostic is collected at baseline and subsequently at day 3, 7, 14 and once during the follow-up period (between day 35 and day 84). There is a regular follow-up of 3 months. All discharged patients are followed by regular phone calls. All visits, time points and study assessments are summarized in the Trial Schedule (see full protocol Table 1). All participating trial sites will be supplied with study specific visit worksheets that list all assessments and procedures to be completed at each visit. All findings including clinical and laboratory data are documented by the investigator or an authorized member of the study team in the patient's medical record and in the electronic case report forms (eCRFs). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: This trial will analyze the effects of convalescent plasma from recovered subjects with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high-risk patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at high risk for a poor outcome due to underlying disease, age or condition as listed above are eligible for enrollment. In addition, eligible patients have a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and O2 saturation ≤ 94% while breathing ambient air. Patients are randomised to receive (experimental arm) or not receive (standard arm) convalescent plasma in two bags (238 - 337 ml plasma each) from different donors (day 1, day 2). A cross over from the standard arm into the experimental arm is possible after day 10 in case of not improving or worsening clinical condition. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoints: The main purpose of the study is to assess the time from randomisation until an improvement within 84 days defined as two points on a seven-point ordinal scale or live discharge from the hospital in high-risk patients (group 1 to group 4) with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospital admission by infusion of plasma from subjects after convalescence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or standard of care. Secondary endpoints: • Overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause 28-day, 56-day and 84-day overall survival rates. • SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and load as well as antibody titres. • Requirement mechanical ventilation at any time during hospital stay (yes/no). • Time until discharge from randomisation. • Viral load, changes in antibody titers and cytokine profiles are analysed in an exploratory manner using paired non-parametric tests (before - after treatment). RANDOMISATION: Upon confirmation of eligibility (patients must meet all inclusion criteria and must not meet exclusion criteria described in section 5.3 and 5.4 of the full protocol), the clinical site must contact a centralized internet randomization system ( https://randomizer.at/ ). Patients are randomized using block randomisation to one of the two arms, experimental arm or standard arm, in a 1:1 ratio considering a stratification according to the 4 risk groups (see Participants). BLINDING (MASKING): The study is open-label, no blinding will be performed. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total number of 174 patients is required for the entire trial, n=87 per group. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 1.2 dated 09/07/2020. A recruitment period of approximately 9 months and an overall study duration of approximately 12 months is anticipated. Recruitment of patients starts in the third quarter of 2020. The study duration of an individual patient is planned to be 3 months. After finishing all study-relevant procedures, therapy, and follow-up period, the patient is followed in terms of routine care and treated if necessary. Total trial duration: 18 months Duration of the clinical phase: 12 months First patient first visit (FPFV): 3rd Quarter 2020 Last patient first visit (LPFV): 2nd Quarter 2021 Last patient last visit (LPLV): 3rd Quarter 2021 Trial Report completed: 4th Quarter 2021 TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-001632-10, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE , registered on 04/04/2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2). The eCRF is attached (Additional file 3).

Machine learning identifies ICU outcome predictors in a multicenter COVID-19 cohort.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Resources are heavily utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, risk stratification and prediction of SARS-CoV-2 patient clinical outcomes upon ICU admission remain inadequate. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model, based on retrospective & prospective clinical data, to stratify patient risk and predict ICU survival and outcomes. METHODS: A Germany-wide electronic registry was established to pseudonymously collect admission, therapeutic and discharge information of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients retrospectively and prospectively. Machine learning approaches were evaluated for the accuracy and interpretability of predictions. The Explainable Boosting Machine approach was selected as the most suitable method. Individual, non-linear shape functions for predictive parameters and parameter interactions are reported. RESULTS: 1039 patients were included in the Explainable Boosting Machine model, 596 patients retrospectively collected, and 443 patients prospectively collected. The model for prediction of general ICU outcome was shown to be more reliable to predict "survival". Age, inflammatory and thrombotic activity, and severity of ARDS at ICU admission were shown to be predictive of ICU survival. Patients' age, pulmonary dysfunction and transfer from an external institution were predictors for ECMO therapy. The interaction of patient age with D-dimer levels on admission and creatinine levels with SOFA score without GCS were predictors for renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Using Explainable Boosting Machine analysis, we confirmed and weighed previously reported and identified novel predictors for outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Using this strategy, predictive modeling of COVID-19 ICU patient outcomes can be performed overcoming the limitations of linear regression models. Trial registration "ClinicalTrials" (clinicaltrials.gov) under NCT04455451.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been reported in over 40million people globally with variable clinical outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed demographic, laboratory and clinical indicators as predictors for severe courses of COVID-19. METHODS: This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO under CRD42020177154. We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, MedRvix and bioRvix) for publications from December 2019 to May 31st 2020. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled odds ratios and differences of medians between (1) patients admitted to ICU versus non-ICU patients and (2) patients who died versus those who survived. We adapted an existing Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for outcome studies. RESULTS: Of 6,702 unique citations, we included 88 articles with 69,762 patients. There was concern for bias across all articles included. Age was strongly associated with mortality with a difference of medians (DoM) of 13.15 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.37 to 14.94) between those who died and those who survived. We found a clinically relevant difference between non-survivors and survivors for C-reactive protein (CRP; DoM 69.10 mg/L, CI 50.43 to 87.77), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; DoM 189.49 U/L, CI 155.00 to 223.98), cardiac troponin I (cTnI; DoM 21.88 pg/mL, CI 9.78 to 33.99) and D-Dimer (DoM 1.29mg/L, CI 0.9 to 1.69). Furthermore, cerebrovascular disease was the co-morbidity most strongly associated with mortality (Odds Ratio 3.45, CI 2.42 to 4.91) and ICU admission (Odds Ratio 5.88, CI 2.35 to 14.73). DISCUSSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis found age, cerebrovascular disease, CRP, LDH and cTnI to be the most important risk-factors that predict severe COVID-19 outcomes and will inform clinical scores to support early decision-making.

Glomerular filtration barrier dysfunction in a self-limiting, RNA virus-induced glomerulopathy resembles findings in idiopathic nephrotic syndromes.

Podocyte injury has recently been described as unifying feature in idiopathic nephrotic syndromes (INS). Puumala hantavirus (PUUV) infection represents a unique RNA virus-induced renal disease with significant proteinuria. The underlying pathomechanism is unclear. We hypothesized that PUUV infection results in podocyte injury, similar to findings in INS. We therefore analyzed standard markers of glomerular proteinuria (e.g. immunoglobulin G [IgG]), urinary nephrin excretion (podocyte injury) and serum levels of the soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), a proposed pathomechanically involved molecule in INS, in PUUV-infected patients. Hantavirus patients showed significantly increased urinary nephrin, IgG and serum suPAR concentrations compared to healthy controls. Nephrin and IgG levels were significantly higher in patients with severe proteinuria than with mild proteinuria, and nephrin correlated strongly with biomarkers of glomerular proteinuria over time. Congruently, electron microcopy analyses showed a focal podocyte foot process effacement. suPAR correlated significantly with urinary nephrin, IgG and albumin levels, suggesting suPAR as a pathophysiological mediator in podocyte dysfunction. In contrast to INS, proteinuria recovered autonomously in hantavirus patients. This study reveals podocyte injury as main cause of proteinuria in hantavirus patients. A better understanding of the regenerative nature of hantavirus-induced glomerulopathy may generate new therapeutic approaches for INS.

The COVID-19 puzzle: deciphering pathophysiology and phenotypes of a new disease entity.

The zoonotic SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 continues to spread worldwide, with devastating consequences. While the medical community has gained insight into the epidemiology of COVID-19, important questions remain about the clinical complexities and underlying mechanisms of disease phenotypes. Severe COVID-19 most commonly involves respiratory manifestations, although other systems are also affected, and acute disease is often followed by protracted complications. Such complex manifestations suggest that SARS-CoV-2 dysregulates the host response, triggering wide-ranging immuno-inflammatory, thrombotic, and parenchymal derangements. We review the intricacies of COVID-19 pathophysiology, its various phenotypes, and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 host response at the humoral and cellular levels. Some similarities exist between COVID-19 and respiratory failure of other origins, but evidence for many distinctive mechanistic features indicates that COVID-19 constitutes a new disease entity, with emerging data suggesting involvement of an endotheliopathy-centred pathophysiology. Further research, combining basic and clinical studies, is needed to advance understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms and to characterise immuno-inflammatory derangements across the range of phenotypes to enable optimum care for patients with COVID-19.