A biomarker assay to risk-stratify patients with symptoms of respiratory tract infection.

BACKGROUND: Patients who present to an emergency department with respiratory symptoms are often conservatively triaged in favour of hospitalization. We sought to determine if an inflammatory biomarker panel that identifies the host response better predicts hospitalization in order to improve the precision of clinical decision-making in the emergency department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2020 to March 2021, plasma samples of 641 patients with symptoms of respiratory illness were collected from emergency departments in an international multicentre study: Canada (n=310), Italy (n=131), and Brazil (n=200). Patients were followed prospectively for 28 days. Subgroup analysis was conducted on confirmed COVID-19 patients (n=245). An inflammatory profile was determined using a rapid, 50-minute, biomarker panel: Rapid Acute Lung Injury Diagnostic (RALI-Dx), which measures IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR1, and sTREM1. RESULTS: RALI-Dx biomarkers were significantly elevated in patients who required hospitalization across all three sites. A machine learning algorithm that was applied to predict hospitalization using RALI-Dx biomarkers had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 76±6% (Canada), 84±4% (Italy), and 86±3% (Brazil). Model performance in COVID-19 patients was 82±3% and 87±7% for patients with a confirmed pneumonia diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid diagnostic biomarker panel accurately identified the need for inpatient care in patients presenting with respiratory symptoms, including COVID-19. The RALI-Dx test is broadly and easily applicable across many jurisdictions and represents an important diagnostic adjunct to advance emergency department decision-making protocols.

Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant individuals are vulnerable to COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on whether elective delivery or expectant management leads to better maternal and neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether elective delivery or expectant management are associated with higher quality-adjusted life expectancy for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and their neonates. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a clinical decision analysis using a patient-level model in which we simulatedpregnant individuals and their unborn children. We used a patient-level model with parallel open-cohort structure, daily cycle length, continuous discounting, lifetime horizon, sensitivity analyses for key parameter values, and 1000 iterations for quantification of uncertainty. We simulated pregnant individuals at 32 weeks of gestation, invasively ventilated because of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the elective delivery strategy, pregnant individuals received immediate cesarean delivery. In the expectant management strategy, pregnancies continued until spontaneous labor or obstetrical decision to deliver. For both pregnant individuals and neonates, model outputs were hospital or perinatal survival, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years, summarized by the mean and 95% credible interval. Maternal utilities incorporated neonatal outcomes in accordance with best practices in perinatal decision analysis. RESULTS: Model outputs for pregnant individuals were similar when comparing elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation with expectant management, including hospital survival (87.1% vs 87.4%), life-years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.4 to 1.1), and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.3 to 1.1). For neonates, elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation was estimated to lead to a higher perinatal survival (98.4% vs 93.2%; difference, 5.2%; 95% credible interval, 3.5-7), similar life-years (difference, 0.9; 95% credible interval, -0.9 to 2.8), and higher quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.4-2.2). For pregnant individuals, elective delivery was not superior to expectant management across a range of scenarios between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation. Elective delivery in cases where intrauterine death or maternal mortality were more likely resulted in higher neonatal quality-adjusted life expectancy, as did elective delivery at 30 weeks' gestation (difference, 1.1 years; 95% credible interval, 0.1 - 2.1) despite higher long-term complications (4.3% vs 0.5%; difference, 3.7%; 95% credible interval, 2.4-5.1), and in cases where intrauterine death or maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality were more likely. CONCLUSION: The decision to pursue elective delivery vs expectant management in pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome should be guided by gestational age, risk of intrauterine death, and maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. For the pregnant individual, elective delivery is comparable but not superior to expectant management for gestational ages from 28 to 34 weeks. For neonates, elective delivery was superior if gestational age was ≥30 weeks and if the rate of intrauterine death or maternal mortality risk were high. We recommend basing the decision for elective delivery vs expectant management in a pregnant individual with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome on gestational age and likelihood of intrauterine or maternal death.

Lessons Learned: Beta-Testing the Digital Health Checklist for Researchers Prompts a Call to Action by Behavioral Scientists.

Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for health research. For example, Twitter posts can support public health surveillance to identify outbreaks (eg, influenza and COVID-19), and a wearable fitness tracker can provide real-time data collection to assess the effectiveness of a behavior change intervention. With these opportunities, it is necessary to consider the potential risks and benefits to research participants when using digital tools or strategies. Researchers need to be involved in the risk assessment process, as many tools in the marketplace (eg, wellness apps, fitness sensors) are underregulated. However, there is little guidance to assist researchers and institutional review boards in their evaluation of digital tools for research purposes. To address this gap, the Digital Health Checklist for Researchers (DHC-R) was developed as a decision support tool. A participatory research approach involving a group of behavioral scientists was used to inform DHC-R development. Scientists beta-tested the checklist by retrospectively evaluating the technologies they had chosen for use in their research. This paper describes the lessons learned because of their involvement in the beta-testing process and concludes with recommendations for how the DHC-R could be useful for a variety of digital health stakeholders. Recommendations focus on future research and policy development to support research ethics, including the development of best practices to advance safe and responsible digital health research.

COVID-19 risk stratification algorithms based on sTREM-1 and IL-6 in emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to surges of patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) and potentially overwhelming health systems. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the predictive accuracy of host biomarkers at clinical presentation to the ED for adverse outcome. METHODS: Prospective observational study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients in the ED of a Swiss hospital. Concentrations of inflammatory and endothelial dysfunction biomarkers were determined at clinical presentation. We evaluated the accuracy of clinical signs and these biomarkers in predicting 30-day intubation/mortality, and oxygen requirement by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve and by classification and regression tree analysis. RESULTS: Of 76 included patients with COVID-19, 24 were outpatients or hospitalized without oxygen requirement, 35 hospitalized with oxygen requirement, and 17 intubated/died. We found that soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells had the best prognostic accuracy for 30-day intubation/mortality (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95) and IL-6 measured at presentation to the ED had the best accuracy for 30-day oxygen requirement (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). An algorithm based on respiratory rate and sTREM-1 predicted 30-day intubation/mortality with 94% sensitivity and 0.1 negative likelihood ratio. An IL-6-based algorithm had 98% sensitivity and 0.04 negative likelihood ratio for 30-day oxygen requirement. CONCLUSIONS: sTREM-1 and IL-6 concentrations in COVID-19 in the ED have good predictive accuracy for intubation/mortality and oxygen requirement. sTREM-1- and IL-6-based algorithms are highly sensitive to identify patients with adverse outcome and could serve as early triage tools.

Protecting Frontline Health Care Workers from COVID-19 with Hydroxychloroquine Pre-exposure Prophylaxis: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled multisite trial in Toronto, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective: To determine if pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with 400mg hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), taken orally once daily reduces microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 among front line health care workers at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Secondary Objectives: To compare the following between study arms: adverse events; symptomatic COVID-19; duration of symptomatic COVID-19; days hospitalized attributed to COVID-19; respiratory failure attributable to COVID-19 requiring i) non-invasive ventilation or ii) intubation/mechanical ventilation; mortality attributed to COVID-19, number of days unable to work attributed to COVID-19, seroconversion (COVID-19 negative to COVID-19 positive over the study period); ability of participant plasma to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 virus in vitro; To describe short-term psychological distress associated with risk of COVID-19 exposure at 1, 60, 120 days of the study. To explore laboratory markers within participants with confirmed COVID-19: including circulating markers of host immune and endothelial activation in participant plasma and their correlation with disease severity and outcome TRIAL DESIGN: The HEROS study is a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomized (1:1 allocation ratio), placebo controlled, participant and investigator-blinded, multi-site superiority trial of oral HCQ 400 mg taken once daily for 90 days as PrEP to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. At 90 days, there is an open label extension wherein all participants are offered a one-month course of HCQ 400mg once daily for PrEP of COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Frontline HCWs aged 18 years of age or older, at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure (including staff of emergency departments, intensive care units, intubation teams, COVID-wards, and staff deployed to Long Term Care facilities) of five academic hospitals in downtown Toronto, Canada. Exclusion criteria include: currently pregnant, planning to become pregnant during the study period, and/or breast feeding; known hypersensitivity/allergy to hydroxychloroquine or to 4-aminoquinoline compounds; current use of hydroxychloroquine; known prolonged QT syndrome and/or baseline resting ECG with QTc>450 ms and/or concomitant medications which simultaneously may prolong the QTc that cannot be temporarily suspended/replaced; known pre-existing retinopathy, G6PD deficiency, porphyria, liver disease including cirrhosis, encephalopathy, hepatitis or alcoholism, diabetes on oral hypoglycemics or insulin, or renal insufficiency/failure; disclosure of self-administered use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine within 12 weeks prior to study; confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at time of enrollment. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: hydroxychloroquine, 400mg (2 tablets) orally per day. Comparator: placebo, two tablets visually identical to the intervention, orally per day MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 (i.e. SARS-CoV-2 infection). This is a composite endpoint which includes positive results from any validated SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assay including detection of viral RNA, and/or seroconversion. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and then undergo monthly follow-up at day 30, 60, and 90, 120. At each visit, participants will provide an oropharyngeal sample, blood sample, and will undergo electrocardiogram monitoring of the QTc interval. Secondary outcome measures include: adverse events; symptom duration of COVID-19; days of hospitalization attributed to COVID-19; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support attributed to COVID-19; mortality attributed to COVID-19; total days off work attributed to COVID-19; seropositivity (reactive serology by day 120); and short term psychological impact of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at day 1, 60, 120 days using the K10, a validated measure of non-specific psychological distress. RANDOMISATION: Within each site, participants will be individually randomized to either the intervention arm with HCQ or the placebo arm using a fixed 1:1 allocation ratio using an interactive web-based response system to ensure concealment of allocation. Randomization schedules will be computer-generated and blocked using variable block sizes. BLINDING (MASKING): All participants, research coordinators, technicians, clinicians and investigators will be blinded to the participant allocation group. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) N=988, randomised into two groups of 494 patients. TRIAL STATUS: This summary describes protocol version No. 1.6, May 15, 2020. Recruitment is ongoing - started April 20, 2020 and anticipated end date is July 30, 2021 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN14326006, registered April 14, 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).