Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(9): 1112, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832812
2.
Critical care explorations ; 4(3), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1738096

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%;physical, 69%;and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.

3.
J Immunol Methods ; 499: 113165, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1458580

ABSTRACT

Monitoring the burden and spread of infection with the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, whether within small communities or in large geographical settings, is of paramount importance for public health purposes. Serology, which detects the host antibody response to the infection, is the most appropriate tool for this task, since virus-derived markers are most reliably detected during the acute phase of infection. Here we show that our ELISA protocol, which is based on antibody binding to the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the S1 subunit of the viral Spike protein expressed as a novel fusion protein, detects antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. We also show that our ELISA is accurate and versatile. It compares favorably with commercial assays widely used in clinical practice to determine exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, our protocol accommodates use of various blood- and non-blood-derived biospecimens, such as breast milk, as well as dried blood obtained with microsampling cartridges that are appropriate for remote collection. As a result, our RBD-based ELISA protocols are well suited for seroepidemiology and other large-scale studies requiring parsimonious sample collection outside of healthcare settings.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Dried Blood Spot Testing , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Binding Sites , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Humans , Vaccination
4.
J Infect Dis ; 224(8): 1345-1356, 2021 10 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356688

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We studied risk factors, antibodies, and symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a diverse, ambulatory population. METHODS: A prospective cohort (n = 831) previously undiagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent serial testing (SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction, immunoglobulin G [IgG]) for 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety-three participants (11.2%) tested SARS-CoV-2-positive: 14 (15.1%) asymptomatic, 24 (25.8%) severely symptomatic. Healthcare workers (n = 548) were more likely to become infected (14.2% vs 5.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.3) and severely symptomatic (29.5% vs 6.7%). IgG antibodies were detected after 79% of asymptomatic infections, 89% with mild-moderate symptoms, and 96% with severe symptoms. IgG trajectories after asymptomatic infections (slow increases) differed from symptomatic infections (early peaks within 2 months). Most participants (92%) had persistent IgG responses (median 171 days). In multivariable models, IgG titers were positively associated with symptom severity, certain comorbidities, and hospital work. Dyspnea and neurologic changes (including altered smell/taste) lasted ≥ 120 days in ≥ 10% of affected participants. Prolonged symptoms (frequently more severe) corresponded to higher antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, ethnically diverse cohort, symptom severity correlated with the magnitude and trajectory of IgG production. Symptoms frequently persisted for many months after infection.Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04336215.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Young Adult
5.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(3): e0372, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1158029

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: About 15% of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients require ICU admission, and most (80%) of these require invasive mechanical ventilation. Lung-protective ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory failure may result in severe respiratory acidosis without significant hypoxemia. Low-flow extracorporeal Co2 removal can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and avoid the adverse effects of severe respiratory acidosis. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of extracorporeal Co2 removal using the Hemolung Respiratory Assist System in correcting severe respiratory acidosis in mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients with severe acute respiratory failure. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 mechanically ventilated with severe hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis and treated with low-flow extracorporeal Co2 removal. SETTING: Eight tertiary ICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult patients supported with the Hemolung Respiratory Assist System from March 1, to September 30, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Extracorporeal Co2 removal with Hemolung Respiratory Assist System under a Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for coronavirus disease 2019. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was improvement in pH and Paco2 from baseline. Secondary outcomes included survival to decannulation, mortality, time on ventilator, and adverse events. Thirty-one patients were treated with Hemolung Respiratory Assist System with significant improvement in pH and Pco2 in this cohort. Two patients experienced complications that prevented treatment. Of the 29 treated patients, 58% survived to 48 hours post treatment and 38% to hospital discharge. No difference in age or comorbidities were noted between survivors and nonsurvivors. There was significant improvement in pH (7.24 ± 0.12 to 7.35 ± 0.07; p < 0.0001) and Paco2 (79 ± 23 to 58 ± 14; p < 0.0001) from baseline to 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective case series of 29 patients, we have demonstrated efficacy of extracorporeal Co2 removal using the Hemolung Respiratory Assist System to improve respiratory acidosis in patients with severe hypercapnic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019.

6.
BMC Infect Dis ; 20(1): 853, 2020 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-926345

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) are presumed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to occupational exposure to infected patients. However, there has been little epidemiological research to assess these risks. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of HCW (n = 546) and non-healthcare workers (NHCW; n = 283) with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were recruited from a large U.S. university and two affiliated university hospitals. In this cross-sectional analysis of data collected at baseline, we examined SARS-CoV-2 infection status (as determined by presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in oropharyngeal swabs) by healthcare worker status and role. RESULTS: At baseline, 41 (5.0%) of the participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 14 (34.2%) reported symptoms. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher among HCW (7.3%) than in NHCW (0.4%), representing a 7.0% greater absolute risk (95% confidence interval for risk difference 4.7, 9.3%). The majority of infected HCW (62.5%) were nurses. Positive tests increased across the two weeks of cohort recruitment in line with rising confirmed cases in the hospitals and surrounding counties. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results demonstrate that HCW had a higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than NHCW. Continued follow-up of this cohort will enable us to monitor infection rates and examine risk factors for transmission.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New Jersey/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/virology , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Pandemics , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Young Adult
7.
Eur Respir Rev ; 29(157)2020 Sep 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-835811

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Consensus suggestions can standardise care, thereby improving outcomes and facilitating future research. METHODS: An International Task Force was composed and agreement regarding courses of action was measured using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. 70% agreement was necessary to make a consensus suggestion. RESULTS: The Task Force made consensus suggestions to treat patients with acute COVID-19 pneumonia with remdesivir and dexamethasone but suggested against hydroxychloroquine except in the context of a clinical trial; these are revisions of prior suggestions resulting from the interim publication of several randomised trials. It also suggested that COVID-19 patients with a venous thromboembolic event be treated with therapeutic anticoagulant therapy for 3 months. The Task Force was unable to reach sufficient agreement to yield consensus suggestions for the post-hospital care of COVID-19 survivors. The Task Force fell one vote shy of suggesting routine screening for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force addressed questions related to pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19 and the post-hospital care of survivors, yielding several consensus suggestions. Management options for which there is insufficient agreement to formulate a suggestion represent research priorities.


Subject(s)
Advisory Committees/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , International Cooperation , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pulmonary Medicine/standards , Societies, Medical , COVID-19 , Europe , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
8.
J Mol Diagn ; 22(7): 871-875, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-630204

ABSTRACT

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic sweeps across the world, the availability of viral transport medium (VTM) has become severely limited, contributing to delays in diagnosis and rationing of diagnostic testing. Given that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA has demonstrated stability, we posited that phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) may be a viable transport medium, as an alternative to VTM, for clinical real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) testing. The intra-individual reliability and interindividual reliability of SARS-CoV-2 qPCR were assessed in clinical endotracheal secretion samples transported in VTM or PBS to evaluate the stability of the qPCR signal for three viral targets (N gene, ORF1ab, and S gene) when samples were stored in these media at room temperature for up to 18 hours. We report that the use of PBS as a transport medium allows high intra-individual and interindividual reliability, maintains viral stability, and compares with VTM in the detection of the three SARS-CoV-2 genes through 18 hours of storage. This study establishes PBS as a clinically useful medium that can be readily deployed for transporting and short-term preservation of specimens containing SARS-CoV-2. Use of PBS as a transport medium has the potential to increase testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2, aiding more widespread screening and early diagnosis of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/analysis , Saline Solution/chemistry , Specimen Handling/methods , Virus Cultivation/methods , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Predictive Value of Tests , Preservation, Biological , RNA, Viral/genetics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL