Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Chest ; 2022 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914240

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for <14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n=487) or placebo (n=473). The primary outcome was clinical status (illness severity) 14 days after study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) <1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified by the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR: 1.04; 1/7 support interval (SI): 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR: 1.15; 1/7 SI: 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR: 0.96; 1/7 SI: 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89/482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80/465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR: 1.04, 1/7 SI: 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes.

2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1890901

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the viral vector COVID-19 vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized March 11-December 15, 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. RESULTS: After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3,979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2.229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% CI: 63%-75%) overall, including 55% (29%-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64%-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59%-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60%-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54%-81%]) post-vaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18%-65%) among immunocompetent patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months post-vaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

3.
J Infect Dis ; 2022 Apr 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1853098

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to evaluate 2 and 3 dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS: 21-site case-control analysis of 10,425 adults hospitalized March-December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (SARS-CoV-2 negative). Participants were classified as: SOT recipient (n=440), other immunocompromising condition (n=1684), or immunocompetent (n=8301). VE against COVID-19 associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls. RESULTS: Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% CI: -19 to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI: 48 to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI: 64 to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI: 85 to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI: 87 to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI: 83 to 99%) for 3 doses. CONCLUSION: Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent people and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.

4.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(4): 680-689, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764954

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Status , Humans , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life/psychology , SARS-CoV-2
5.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(12): 459-465, 2022 Mar 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1761302

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) are effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization (1-3). However, how well mRNA vaccines protect against the most severe outcomes of these hospitalizations, including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death is uncertain. Using a case-control design, mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated IMV and in-hospital death was evaluated among adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized at 21 U.S. medical centers during March 11, 2021-January 24, 2022. During this period, the most commonly circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron). Previous vaccination (2 or 3 versus 0 vaccine doses before illness onset) in prospectively enrolled COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died within 28 days of hospitalization was compared with that among hospitalized control patients without COVID-19. Among 1,440 COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died, 307 (21%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses before illness onset. Among 6,104 control-patients, 4,020 (66%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses. Among the 1,440 case-patients who received IMV or died, those who were vaccinated were older (median age = 69 years), more likely to be immunocompromised* (40%), and had more chronic medical conditions compared with unvaccinated case-patients (median age = 55 years; immunocompromised = 10%; p<0.001 for both). VE against IMV or in-hospital death was 90% (95% CI = 88%-91%) overall, including 88% (95% CI = 86%-90%) for 2 doses and 94% (95% CI = 91%-96%) for 3 doses, and 94% (95% CI = 88%-97%) for 3 doses during the Omicron-predominant period. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated death and respiratory failure treated with IMV. CDC recommends that all persons eligible for vaccination get vaccinated and stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination (4).


Subject(s)
2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Respiration, Artificial , Vaccine Efficacy , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , United States/epidemiology
6.
Am J Crit Care ; 31(2): 146-157, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1737135

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding COVID-19 epidemiology is crucial to clinical care and to clinical trial design and interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 early in the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 57 US hospitals from March 1 to April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Of 1480 inpatients with COVID-19, median (IQR) age was 62.0 (49.4-72.9) years, 649 (43.9%) were female, and 822 of 1338 (61.4%) were non-White or Hispanic/Latino. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 575 patients (38.9%), mostly within 4 days of hospital presentation. Respiratory failure affected 583 patients (39.4%), including 284 (19.2%) within 24 hours of hospital presentation and 413 (27.9%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 8 (5-15) days overall and 15 (9-24) days among intensive care unit patients. Hospital mortality was 17.7% (n = 262). Risk factors for hospital death identified by penalized multivariable regression included older age; male sex; comorbidity burden; symptoms-to-admission interval; hypotension; hypoxemia; and higher white blood cell count, creatinine level, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Of 1218 survivors, 221 (18.1%) required new respiratory support at discharge and 259 of 1153 (22.5%) admitted from home required new health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In a geographically diverse early-pandemic COVID-19 cohort with complete hospital folllow-up, hospital mortality was associated with older age, comorbidity burden, and male sex. Intensive care unit admissions occurred early and were associated with protracted hospital stays. Survivors often required new health care services or respiratory support at discharge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
7.
BMJ ; 376: e069761, 2022 03 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736045

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: 21 hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization's clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: mRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Case-Control Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Prospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , United States
8.
Am J Crit Care ; 31(2): 146-157, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497459

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding COVID-19 epidemiology is crucial to clinical care and to clinical trial design and interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 early in the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 57 US hospitals from March 1 to April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Of 1480 inpatients with COVID-19, median (IQR) age was 62.0 (49.4-72.9) years, 649 (43.9%) were female, and 822 of 1338 (61.4%) were non-White or Hispanic/Latino. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 575 patients (38.9%), mostly within 4 days of hospital presentation. Respiratory failure affected 583 patients (39.4%), including 284 (19.2%) within 24 hours of hospital presentation and 413 (27.9%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 8 (5-15) days overall and 15 (9-24) days among intensive care unit patients. Hospital mortality was 17.7% (n = 262). Risk factors for hospital death identified by penalized multivariable regression included older age; male sex; comorbidity burden; symptoms-to-admission interval; hypotension; hypoxemia; and higher white blood cell count, creatinine level, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Of 1218 survivors, 221 (18.1%) required new respiratory support at discharge and 259 of 1153 (22.5%) admitted from home required new health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In a geographically diverse early-pandemic COVID-19 cohort with complete hospital folllow-up, hospital mortality was associated with older age, comorbidity burden, and male sex. Intensive care unit admissions occurred early and were associated with protracted hospital stays. Survivors often required new health care services or respiratory support at discharge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Chest ; 161(1): 140-151, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401306

ABSTRACT

Considering the COVID-19 pandemic where concomitant occurrence of ARDS and severe acute brain injury (sABI) has increasingly coemerged, we synthesize existing data regarding the simultaneous management of both conditions. Our aim is to provide readers with fundamental principles and concepts for the management of sABI and ARDS, and highlight challenges and conflicts encountered while managing concurrent disease. Up to 40% of patients with sABI can develop ARDS. Although there are trials and guidelines to support the mainstays of treatment for ARDS and sABI independently, guidance on concomitant management is limited. Treatment strategies aimed at managing severe ARDS may at times conflict with the management of sABI. In this narrative review, we discuss the physiological basis and risks involved during simultaneous management of ARDS and sABI, summarize evidence for treatment decisions, and demonstrate these principles using hypothetical case scenarios. Use of invasive or noninvasive monitoring to assess brain and lung physiology may facilitate goal-directed treatment strategies with the potential to improve outcome. Understanding the pathophysiology and key treatment concepts for comanagement of these conditions is critical to optimizing care in this high-acuity patient population.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries/complications , Brain Injuries/therapy , Disease Management , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Respir Care ; 66(10): 1601-1609, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1381425

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often develop acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and receive invasive mechanical ventilation. Much remains unknown about their respiratory mechanics, including the trajectories of pulmonary compliance and [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text], the prognostic value of these parameters, and the effects of prone positioning. We described respiratory mechanics among subjects with COVID-19 who were intubated during the first month of hospitalization. METHODS: We included patients with COVID-19 who were mechanically ventilated between February and May 2020. Daily values of pulmonary compliance, [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and the use of prone positioning were abstracted from electronic medical records. The trends were analyzed separately over days 1-10 and days 1-35 of intubation, stratified by prone positioning use, survival, and initial [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text]. RESULTS: Among 49 subjects on mechanical ventilation day 1, the mean compliance was 41 mL/cm H2O, decreasing to 25 mL/cm H2O by day 14, the median duration of mechanical ventilation. In contrast, the [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] on day 1 was similar to day 14. The overall mean compliance was greater among the non-survivors versus the survivors (27 mL/cm H2O vs 24 mL/cm H2O; P = .005), whereas [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] was higher among the survivors versus the non-survivors over days 1-10 (159 mm Hg vs 138 mm Hg; P = .002) and days 1-35 (175 mm Hg vs 153 mm Hg; P < .001). The subjects who underwent early prone positioning had lower compliance during days 1-10 (27 mL/cm H2O vs 33 mL/cm H2O; P < .001) and lower [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] values over days 1-10 (139.9 mm Hg vs 167.4 mm Hg; P < .001) versus those who did not undergo prone positioning. After day 21 of hospitalization, the average compliance of the subjects who had early prone positioning surpassed that of the subjects who did not have prone positioning. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory mechanics of the subjects with COVID-19 who were on mechanical ventilation were characterized by persistently low respiratory system compliance and [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text], similar to ARDS due to other etiologies. The [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] was more tightly associated with mortality than with compliance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Critical Illness , Humans , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Mechanics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(10): 1167-1175, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348262

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has a widely variable clinical syndrome that is difficult to distinguish from bacterial sepsis, leading to high rates of antibiotic use. Early studies indicate low rates of secondary bacterial infections (SBIs) but have included heterogeneous patient populations. Here, we catalogue all SBIs and antibiotic prescription practices in a population of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation from 3 Seattle, Washington hospitals in 2020. Data were obtained via electronic and manual review of the electronic medical record. We report the incidence and site of SBIs, mortality, and antibiotics per day using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We identified 126 patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS during the study period. Of these patients, 61% developed clinical infection confirmed by bacterial culture. Ventilator associated pneumonia was confirmed in 55% of patients, bacteremia in 20%, and urinary tract infection (UTI) in 17%. Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly isolated bacterial species. A total of 97% of patients received antibiotics during their hospitalization, and patients received nearly one antibiotic per day during their hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS are at high risk for secondary bacterial infections and have extensive antibiotic exposure.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/chemically induced , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
12.
ATS Sch ; 1(2): 178-185, 2020 Jun 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191238

ABSTRACT

Due to the limited number of critical care providers in the United States, even well-staffed hospitals are at risk of exhausting both physical and human resources during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One potential response to this problem is redeployment of non-critical care providers to increase the supply of available clinicians. To support efforts to increase capacity as part of surge preparation for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, we created an online educational resource for non-intensivist providers to learn basic critical care content. Among those materials, we created a series of one-page learning guides for the management of common problems encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU). These guides were meant to be used as just-in-time tools to guide problem-solving during the provision of ICU care. This article presents five guides related to managing complications that can arise in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

13.
ATS Sch ; 1(2): 170-177, 2020 Jun 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191233

ABSTRACT

Due to the limited number of critical care providers in the United States, even well-staffed hospitals are at risk of exhausting both physical and human resources during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One potential response to this problem is redeployment of non-critical care providers to increase the supply of available clinicians. To support efforts to increase capacity as part of surge preparation for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, we created an online educational resource for nonintensivist providers to learn basic critical care content. Among those materials, we created a series of one-page learning guides for the management of common problems encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU). These guides were meant to be used as just-in-time tools to guide problem-solving during the provision of ICU care. This article presents five guides related to the evaluation and management of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and the basics of invasive mechanical ventilation.

14.
Trials ; 22(1): 221, 2021 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143248

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is being used widely as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is unclear. METHODS: The Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassITON) is a multicenter, placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized clinical trial being conducted in the USA to provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma as a treatment for adults hospitalized with symptomatic disease. Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms for less than 14 days are eligible. Enrolled patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 unit (200-399 mL) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma that has demonstrated neutralizing function using a SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus neutralization assay. Study treatments are administered in a blinded fashion and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is clinical status 14 days after study treatment as measured on a 7-category ordinal scale assessing mortality, respiratory support, and return to normal activities of daily living. Key secondary outcomes include mortality and oxygen-free days. The trial is projected to enroll 1000 patients and is designed to detect an odds ratio ≤ 0.73 for the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the most robust data available to date on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of adults hospitalized with acute moderate to severe COVID-19. These data will be useful to guide the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the current pandemic and for informing decisions about whether developing a standardized infrastructure for collecting and disseminating convalescent plasma to prepare for future viral pandemics is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362176 . Registered on 24 April 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States
15.
Resuscitation ; 160: 72-78, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1051928

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused over 1 200 000 deaths worldwide as of November 2020. However, little is known about the clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with active COVID-19 after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). AIM: We aimed to characterize outcomes from IHCA in patients with COVID-19 and to identify patient- and hospital-level variables associated with 30-day survival. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study across 11 academic medical centres in the U.S. Adult patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or defibrillation for IHCA between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 who had a documented positive test for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival after IHCA. RESULTS: There were 260 IHCAs among COVID-19 patients during the study period. The median age was 69 years (interquartile range 60-77), 71.5% were male, 49.6% were White, 16.9% were Black, and 16.2% were Hispanic. The most common presenting rhythms were pulseless electrical activity (45.0%) and asystole (44.6%). ROSC occurred in 58 patients (22.3%), 31 (11.9%) survived to hospital discharge, and 32 (12.3%) survived to 30 days. Rates of ROSC and 30-day survival in the two hospitals with the highest volume of IHCA over the study period compared to the remaining hospitals were considerably lower (10.8% vs. 64.3% and 5.9% vs. 35.7% respectively, p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: We found rates of ROSC and 30-day survival of 22.3% and 12.3% respectively. There were large variations in centre-level outcomes, which may explain the poor survival in prior studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/virology , Hospitalization , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , United States
16.
JAMA ; 324(21): 2165-2176, 2020 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-978083

ABSTRACT

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Failure
17.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 17(9): 1144-1153, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781684

ABSTRACT

The ORCHID (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease) trial is a multicenter, blinded, randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This document provides the rationale and background for the trial and highlights key design features. We discuss five novel challenges to the design and conduct of a large, multicenter, randomized trial during a pandemic, including 1) widespread, off-label use of the study drug before the availability of safety and efficacy data; 2) the need to adapt traditional procedures for documentation of informed consent during an infectious pandemic; 3) developing a flexible and robust Bayesian analysis incorporating significant uncertainty about the disease, outcomes, and treatment; 4) obtaining indistinguishable drug and placebo without delaying enrollment; and 5) rapidly obtaining administrative and regulatory approvals. Our goals in describing how the ORCHID trial progressed from study conception to enrollment of the first patient in 15 days are to inform the development of other high-quality, multicenter trials targeting COVID-19. We describe lessons learned to improve the efficiency of future clinical trials, particularly in the setting of pandemics. The ORCHID trial will provide high-quality, clinically relevant data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04332991).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Antimalarials/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL