Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Feb 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1795355

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data regarding how the delta variant of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of the three vaccines during the pre- and post-delta variant period (before and after July 1 st, 2021) in a large cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system. We assessed vaccine effectiveness using two analyses: an Inverse Propensity Weighted (IPW) Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis based on time from vaccination, and a Cox model based on calendar time with vaccination as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: Compared to Ad26.COV2.S recipients, the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the post-delta variant period was lower for BNT162b2 recipients (HR=0.37; 95% CI: [0.14-0.98]; p=0.05) and mRNA-1273 recipients (HR=0.21; 95% CI: [0.07-0.64]; p=0.006). Recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than Ad26.COV2.S recipients (HR=0.6; 95% CI: [0.43-0.83]; p=0.003) and BNT162b2 recipients (HR=0.64; 95% CI: [0.54-0.76]; p<0.001). After July 1 st, efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection declined for Ad26.COV2.S recipients (VE=76% before; VE=49% after; p=0.02), BNT162b2 recipients (VE=87% before; VE=52% after; p<0.001), and mRNA-1273 recipients (VE=92% before; VE=70% after; p<0.001). Waning immunity and the delta variant contributed independently and significantly to this decline. DISCUSSION: Although there is a substantial decline in effectiveness, the approved COVID-19 vaccines remain effective against infection and hospitalization due to the delta variant. The mRNA-based vaccines are more effective than the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

2.
Nat Metab ; 4(3): 310-319, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764213

ABSTRACT

Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 have gained attention due to their links to clinical outcomes and their potential long-term sequelae1. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) displays tropism towards several organs, including the heart and kidney. Whether it also directly affects the liver has been debated2,3. Here we provide clinical, histopathological, molecular and bioinformatic evidence for the hepatic tropism of SARS-CoV-2. We find that liver injury, indicated by a high frequency of abnormal liver function tests, is a common clinical feature of COVID-19 in two independent cohorts of patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Using autopsy samples obtained from a third patient cohort, we provide multiple levels of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 liver tropism, including viral RNA detection in 69% of autopsy liver specimens, and successful isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from liver tissue postmortem. Furthermore, we identify transcription-, proteomic- and transcription factor-based activity profiles in hepatic autopsy samples, revealing similarities to the signatures associated with multiple other viral infections of the human liver. Together, we provide a comprehensive multimodal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 liver tropism, which increases our understanding of the molecular consequences of severe COVID-19 and could be useful for the identification of organ-specific pharmacological targets.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Liver , Proteomics , Tropism
3.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 81(6): 875-880, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1701139

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We intended to assess the effectiveness of all three US Food and Drug Administration approved COVID-19 vaccines at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in a large cohort of individuals on immunosuppressants for a diverse range of conditions. METHODS: We studied the effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines among individuals who take immunosuppressants (including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids) by comparing vaccinated (n=97688) and unvaccinated (n=42094) individuals in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system from 1 January to 7 December 2021, using Cox proportional hazards modelling with time-varying covariates. RESULTS: Among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, taking immunosuppressants increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted HR (aHR)=2.17, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.79 for fully vaccinated and aHR=1.40, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.83 for unvaccinated). Among individuals taking immunosuppressants, we found: (1) vaccination reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR=0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.78); (2) the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=2046, aHR=0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.91 for BNT162b2; n=2064, aHR=0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82 for mRNA-1273); (3) with a smaller sample size (n=173), Ad26.COV2.S vaccine protection did not reach statistical significance (aHR=0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.30, p=0.17); and (4) receiving a booster dose reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR=0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines are effective in individuals who take immunosuppressants. However, individuals who are vaccinated but on immunosuppressants are still at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation than the broader vaccinated population. Booster doses are effective and crucially important for individuals on immunosuppressants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Ad26COVS1 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Diabetes Care ; 45(3): 692-700, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1638713

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for reasons that are unclear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We leveraged the International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19 (ISIC), a multicenter observational study of 2,044 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, to characterize the impact of DM on in-hospital outcomes and assess the contribution of inflammation and hyperglycemia to the risk attributed to DM. We measured biomarkers of inflammation collected at hospital admission and collected glucose levels and insulin data throughout hospitalization. The primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: Among participants (mean age 60 years, 58.2% males), those with DM (n = 686, 33.5%) had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (37.8% vs. 28.6%) and higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers than those without DM. Among biomarkers, DM was only associated with higher soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) levels in multivariable analysis. Adjusting for suPAR levels abrogated the association between DM and the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.23 [95% CI 0.78, 1.37]). In mediation analysis, we estimated the proportion of the effect of DM on the primary outcome mediated by suPAR at 84.2%. Hyperglycemia and higher insulin doses were independent predictors of the primary outcome, with effect sizes unaffected by adjusting for suPAR levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the association between DM and outcomes in COVID-19 is largely mediated by hyperinflammation as assessed by suPAR levels, while the impact of hyperglycemia is independent of inflammation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus , Hyperglycemia , Biomarkers , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Inflammation , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 10(24): e023535, 2021 12 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566424

ABSTRACT

Background Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) is thought to affect COVID-19 through modulating levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV2. We sought to assess the association between ACEi/ARB, biomarkers of inflammation, and outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods and Results We leveraged the ISIC (International Study of Inflammation in COVID-19), identified patients admitted for symptomatic COVID-19 between February 1, 2020 and June 1, 2021 for COVID-19, and examined the association between in-hospital ACEi/ARB use and all-cause death, need for ventilation, and need for dialysis. We estimated the causal effect of ACEi/ARB on the composite outcomes using marginal structural models accounting for serial blood pressure and serum creatinine measures. Of 2044 patients in ISIC, 1686 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 398 (23.6%) patients who were previously on ACEi/ARB received at least 1 dose during their hospitalization for COVID-19. There were 215 deaths, 407 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and 124 patients who required dialysis during their hospitalization. Prior ACEi/ARB use was associated with lower levels of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and C-reactive protein. In multivariable analysis, in-hospital ACEi/ARB use was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI [0.36-0.65]). Conclusions In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, ACEi/ARB use was associated with lower levels of inflammation and lower risk of in-hospital outcomes. Clinical trials will define the role of ACEi/ARB in the treatment of COVID-19. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04818866.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Hospital Mortality , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Inflammation , RNA, Viral , Retrospective Studies
7.
Am J Med ; 135(3): 360-368, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1520668

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Racial disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes have been described. We sought to determine whether differences in inflammatory markers, use of COVID-19 therapies, enrollment in clinical trials, and in-hospital outcomes contribute to racial disparities between Black and non-Black patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We leveraged a prospective cohort study that enrolled 1325 consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19, of whom 341 (25.7%) were Black. We measured biomarkers of inflammation and collected data on the use COVID-19-directed therapies, enrollment in COVID-19 clinical trials, mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, and need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Compared to non-Black patients, Black patients had a higher prevalence of COVID-19 risk factors including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus and were more likely to require renal replacement therapy (15.8% vs 7.1%, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (37.2% vs 26.6%, P < .001) during their hospitalization. Mortality was similar between both groups (15.5% for Blacks vs 14.0% for non-Blacks, P = .49). Black patients were less likely to receive corticosteroids (44.9% vs 63.8%, P< .001) or remdesivir (23.8% vs 57.8%, P < .001) and were less likely to be enrolled in COVID-19 clinical trials (15.3% vs 28.2%, P < .001). In adjusted analyses, Black race was associated with lower levels of C-reactive protein and soluble urokinase receptor and higher odds of death, mechanical ventilation, and renal replacement therapy. Differences in outcomes were not significant after adjusting for use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences in outcomes of patients with COVID-19 may be related to differences in inflammatory response and differential use of therapies.


Subject(s)
African Americans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Inflammation/etiology , Adult , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
8.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(8): e0515, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1393344

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have variable mortality. Risk scores could improve care and be used for prognostic enrichment in trials. We aimed to compare machine learning algorithms and develop a simple tool for predicting 28-day mortality in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: This was an observational study of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day inhospital mortality. Machine learning models and a simple tool were derived using variables from the first 48 hours of ICU admission and validated externally in independent sites and temporally with more recent admissions. Models were compared with a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration. SETTING: Sixty-eight U.S. ICUs. PATIENTS: Adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 ICUs in the United States between March 4, 2020, and June 29, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study included 5,075 patients, 1,846 (36.4%) of whom died by day 28. eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.81) and was well-calibrated, while k-nearest neighbors were the lowest performing machine learning algorithm (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.69). Findings were similar with temporal validation. The simple tool, which was created using the most important features from the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model, had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.78) than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69), National Early Warning Score (0.60), and CURB-65 (0.65; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Age, number of ICU beds, creatinine, lactate, arterial pH, and Pao2/Fio2 ratio were the most important predictors in the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model. CONCLUSIONS: eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest discrimination overall, and our simple tool had higher discrimination than a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 on external validation. These models could be used to improve triage decisions and clinical trial enrichment.

9.
J Clin Med ; 10(17)2021 Aug 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1390662

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the result of a hyper-inflammatory reaction to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The biomarkers of inflammation have been used to risk-stratify patients with COVID-19. Osteopontin (OPN) is an integrin-binding glyco-phosphoprotein involved in the modulation of leukocyte activation; its levels are associated with worse outcomes in patients with sepsis. Whether OPN levels predict outcomes in COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: We measured OPN levels in serum of 341 hospitalized COVID-19 patients collected within 48 h from admission. We characterized the determinants of OPN levels and examined their association with in-hospital outcomes; notably death, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and as a composite outcome. The risk discrimination ability of OPN was compared with other inflammatory biomarkers. RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 (mean age 60, 61.9% male, 27.0% blacks) had significantly higher levels of serum OPN compared to healthy volunteers (96.63 vs. 16.56 ng/mL, p < 0.001). Overall, 104 patients required mechanical ventilation, 35 needed dialysis, and 53 died during their hospitalization. In multivariable analyses, OPN levels ≥140.66 ng/mL (third tertile) were associated with a 3.5 × (95%CI 1.44-8.27) increase in the odds of death, and 4.9 × (95%CI 2.48-9.80) increase in the odds of requiring mechanical ventilation. There was no association between OPN and need for RRT. Finally, OPN levels in the upper tertile turned out as an independent prognostic factor of event-free survival with respect to the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: Higher OPN levels are associated with increased odds of death and mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, however, their utility in triage is questionable.

10.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 10(16): e021204, 2021 08 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352600

ABSTRACT

Background Limited information is available regarding in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID-19. Methods and Results We leveraged the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease (AHA COVID-19 CVD) Registry to conduct a cohort study of adults hospitalized for COVID-19. IHCA was defined as those with documentation of cardiac arrest requiring medication or electrical shock for resuscitation. Mixed effects models with random intercepts were used to identify independent predictors of IHCA and mortality while accounting for clustering at the hospital level. The study cohort included 8518 patients (6080 not in the intensive care unit [ICU]) with mean age of 61.5 years (SD 17.5). IHCA occurred in 509 (5.9%) patients overall with 375 (73.7%) in the ICU and 134 (26.3%) patients not in the ICU. The majority of patients at the time of ICHA were not in a shockable rhythm (76.5%). Independent predictors of IHCA included older age, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; CI, 1.4-2.4; P<0.001), and non-Hispanic Black race (OR, 1.5; CI, 1.1-1.9; P=0.004). Other predictors included oxygen use on admission, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on admission, and hypertension. Overall, 35 (6.9%) patients with IHCA survived to discharge, with 9.1% for ICU and 0.7% for non-ICU patients. Conclusions Older age, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity are independent predictors of IHCA in patients with COVID-19. Although the incidence is much lower than in ICU patients, approximately one-quarter of IHCA events in patients with COVID-19 occur in non-ICU settings, with the latter having a substantially lower survival to discharge rate.


Subject(s)
African Americans , COVID-19 , Heart Arrest/ethnology , Inpatients , Intensive Care Units , Patient Admission , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/ethnology , Death, Sudden, Cardiac/prevention & control , Female , Heart Arrest/diagnosis , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospital Mortality/ethnology , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Race Factors , Registries , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology
11.
Cardiooncology ; 7(1): 28, 2021 Aug 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1350157

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to be associated with poor outcomes in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), data on patients with CVD and concomitant cancer is limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of underlying CVD and CVD risk factors with cancer history on in-hospital mortality in those with COVID-19. METHODS: Data from symptomatic adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 86 hospitals in the US enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 CVD Registry was analyzed. The primary exposure was cancer history. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for demographics, CVD risk factors, and CVD. Interaction between history of cancer with concomitant CVD and CVD risk factors were tested. RESULTS: Among 8222 patients, 892 (10.8%) had a history of cancer and 1501 (18.3%) died. Cancer history had significant interaction with CVD risk factors of age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, but not underlying CVD itself. History of cancer was significantly associated with increased in-hospital death (among average age and BMI patients, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-6.24; p < 0.0001 in those with a smoking history and aOR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.01-1.76; p = 0.04 in non-smokers). Among the cancer subgroup, prior use of chemotherapy within 2 weeks of admission was associated with in-hospital death (aOR = 1.72, 95%CI: 1.05-2.80; p = 0.03). Underlying CVD demonstrated a numerical but statistically nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality (aOR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.99-1.41; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, cancer history was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Notably, among cancer patients, recent use of chemotherapy, but not underlying CVD itself, was associated with worse survival. These findings have important implications in cancer therapy considerations and vaccine distribution in cancer patients with and without underlying CVD and CVD risk factors.

12.
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1026-1037, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307563

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Therapies for patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently needed. Early implementation of prone positioning ventilation improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but studies examining the effect of proning on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are lacking. Our objective was to estimate the effect of early proning initiation on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Data were derived from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 U.S. hospitals. Using these data, we emulated a target trial of prone positioning ventilation by categorizing mechanically ventilated hypoxemic (ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg) patients as having been initiated on proning or not within 2 days of ICU admission. We fit an inverse probability-weighted Cox model to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for early proning versus no early proning. Patients were followed until death, hospital discharge, or end of follow-up. SETTING: ICUs at 68 U.S. sites. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 less than or equal to 200 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,338 eligible patients, 702 (30.0%) were proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission. After inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity of illness characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A total of 1,017 (43.5%) of the 2,338 patients were discharged alive, 1,101 (47.1%) died, and 220 (9.4%) were still hospitalized at last follow-up. Patients proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission had a lower adjusted risk of death compared with nonproned patients (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was lower in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 treated with early proning compared with patients whose treatment did not include early proning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Time-to-Treatment , United States/epidemiology
13.
Res Sq ; 2021 Jun 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270324

ABSTRACT

Background: While pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to be associated with poor outcomes in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), data on patients with CVD and concomitant cancer is limited. Evaluate the effect of underlying CVD and CVD risk factors with cancer history on in-hospital mortality in those with COVID-19. Methods: Data from symptomatic adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 86 hospitals in the US enrolled in the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry was analyzed. The primary exposure was cancer history. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for demographics, CVD risk factors, and CVD. Interaction between history of cancer with concomitant CVD and CVD risk factors were tested. Results: Among 8222 patients, 892 (10.8%) had a history of cancer and 1501 (18.3%) died. Cancer history had significant interaction with CVD risk factors of age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, but not underlying CVD itself. History of cancer was significantly associated with increased in-hospital death (among average age and BMI patients, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-6.24; p<0.0001 in those with a smoking history and aOR=1.33, 95%CI: 1.01 - 1.76; p=0.04 in non-smokers). Among the cancer subgroup, prior use of chemotherapy within 2 weeks of admission was associated with in-hospital death (aOR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.05-2.80; p=0.03). Underlying CVD demonstrated a numerical but statistically nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality (aOR=1.18, 95% CI: 0.99 - 1.41; p=0.07). Conclusion: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, cancer history was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Notably, among cancer patients, recent use of chemotherapy, but not underlying CVD itself, was associated with worse survival. These findings have important implications in cancer therapy considerations and vaccine distribution in cancer patients with and without underlying CVD and CVD risk factors.

14.
Crit Care Med ; 49(6): 901-911, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266195

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Treatment Outcome , Cause of Death , Humans , Incidence
15.
Crit Care Med ; 49(5): e500-e511, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1185991

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism for acute organ injury and death in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, but the relationship between elevated plasma levels of d-dimer, a biomarker of coagulation activation, and mortality has not been rigorously studied. We examined the independent association between d-dimer and death in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Multicenter cohort study. SETTING: ICUs at 68 hospitals across the United States. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to ICUs between March 4, 2020, and May 25, 2020, with a measured d-dimer concentration on ICU day 1 or 2. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure was the highest normalized d-dimer level (assessed in four categories: < 2×, 2-3.9×, 4-7.9×, and ≥ 8× the upper limit of normal) on ICU day 1 or 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Among 3,418 patients (63.1% male; median age 62 yr [interquartile range, 52-71 yr]), 3,352 (93.6%) had a d-dimer concentration above the upper limit of normal. A total of 1,180 patients (34.5%) died within 28 days. Patients in the highest compared with lowest d-dimer category had a 3.11-fold higher odds of death (95% CI, 2.56-3.77) in univariate analyses, decreasing to a 1.81-fold increased odds of death (95% CI, 1.43-2.28) after multivariable adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and illness severity. Further adjustment for therapeutic anticoagulation did not meaningfully attenuate this relationship (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.36-2.19). CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter cohort study of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019, higher d-dimer levels were independently associated with a greater risk of death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/physiopathology , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Severity of Illness Index , Thrombophilia , United States/epidemiology
17.
Crit Care Med ; 49(6): 901-911, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132594

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Treatment Outcome , Cause of Death , Humans , Incidence
18.
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1026-1037, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087828

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Therapies for patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently needed. Early implementation of prone positioning ventilation improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but studies examining the effect of proning on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are lacking. Our objective was to estimate the effect of early proning initiation on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Data were derived from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 U.S. hospitals. Using these data, we emulated a target trial of prone positioning ventilation by categorizing mechanically ventilated hypoxemic (ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg) patients as having been initiated on proning or not within 2 days of ICU admission. We fit an inverse probability-weighted Cox model to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for early proning versus no early proning. Patients were followed until death, hospital discharge, or end of follow-up. SETTING: ICUs at 68 U.S. sites. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 less than or equal to 200 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,338 eligible patients, 702 (30.0%) were proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission. After inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity of illness characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A total of 1,017 (43.5%) of the 2,338 patients were discharged alive, 1,101 (47.1%) died, and 220 (9.4%) were still hospitalized at last follow-up. Patients proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission had a lower adjusted risk of death compared with nonproned patients (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was lower in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 treated with early proning compared with patients whose treatment did not include early proning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Time-to-Treatment , United States/epidemiology
19.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(2): 208-221, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1060219

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Limited data are available on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We examined the clinical features and outcomes of 190 patients treated with ECMO within 14 days of ICU admission, using data from a multicenter cohort study of 5122 critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to 68 hospitals across the United States. To estimate the effect of ECMO on mortality, we emulated a target trial of ECMO receipt versus no ECMO receipt within 7 days of ICU admission among mechanically ventilated patients with severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 100). Patients were followed until hospital discharge, death, or a minimum of 60 days. We adjusted for confounding using a multivariable Cox model. RESULTS: Among the 190 patients treated with ECMO, the median age was 49 years (IQR 41-58), 137 (72.1%) were men, and the median PaO2/FiO2 prior to ECMO initiation was 72 (IQR 61-90). At 60 days, 63 patients (33.2%) had died, 94 (49.5%) were discharged, and 33 (17.4%) remained hospitalized. Among the 1297 patients eligible for the target trial emulation, 45 of the 130 (34.6%) who received ECMO died, and 553 of the 1167 (47.4%) who did not receive ECMO died. In the primary analysis, patients who received ECMO had lower mortality than those who did not (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41-0.74). Results were similar in a secondary analysis limited to patients with PaO2/FiO2 < 80 (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40-0.77). CONCLUSION: In select patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, ECMO may reduce mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Treatment Outcome
20.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(5): 622-632, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1049179

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. DESIGN: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. SETTING: 67 hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). LIMITATION: Observational design. CONCLUSION: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Blood Coagulation Disorders/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/virology , COVID-19/complications , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Disorders/mortality , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/mortality , Hemorrhage/virology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Rate , United States/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/mortality , Venous Thromboembolism/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL