Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e053864, 2022 03 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765122


OBJECTIVES: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS), composed using published sex-specific weightings of parameters in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic profile (BMP), is a validated predictor of mortality. We hypothesised that IMRS calculated from prepandemic CBC and BMP predicts COVID-19 outcomes and that IMRS using laboratory results tested at COVID-19 diagnosis is also predictive. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Primary, secondary, urgent and emergent care, and drive-through testing locations across Utah and in sections of adjacent US states. Viral RNA testing for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted from 3 March to 2 November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years were evaluated if they had CBC and BMP measured in 2019 and tested positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation or mortality, with secondary outcomes being hospitalisation and mortality separately. RESULTS: Among 3883 patients, 8.2% were hospitalised and 1.6% died. Subjects with low, mild, moderate and high-risk IMRS had the composite endpoint in 3.5% (52/1502), 8.6% (108/1256), 15.5% (152/979) and 28.1% (41/146) of patients, respectively. Compared with low-risk, subjects in mild-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk groups had HR=2.33 (95% CI 1.67 to 3.24), HR=4.01 (95% CI 2.93 to 5.50) and HR=8.34 (95% CI 5.54 to 12.57), respectively. Subjects aged <60 years had HR=3.06 (95% CI 2.01 to 4.65) and HR=7.38 (95% CI 3.14 to 17.34) for moderate and high risks versus low risk, respectively; those ≥60 years had HR=1.95 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.86) and HR=3.40 (95% CI 1.63 to 7.07). In multivariable analyses, IMRS was independently predictive and was shown to capture substantial risk variation of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: IMRS, a simple risk score using very basic laboratory results, predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. This included important abilities to identify risk in younger adults with few diagnosed comorbidities and to predict risk prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
Ann Intern Med ; 175(2): 234-243, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753917


BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. ( NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antigens, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(3): ofab663, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1684766


BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are being administered on an unprecedented scale. Assessing the risks of side effects is needed to aid clinicians in early detection and treatment. This study examined the risk of inflammatory heart disease, including pericarditis and myocarditis, after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: Intermountain Healthcare patients with inflammatory heart disease from December 15, 2020 to June 15, 2021, and with or without preceding SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, were studied. Relative rates of inflammatory heart disease were examined for vaccinated patients compared to unvaccinated patients. RESULTS: Of 67 patients identified with inflammatory heart disease, 21 (31.3%) had a SARS-Cov-2 vaccination within the previous 60 days. Overall, 914 611 Intermountain Healthcare patients received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, resulting in an inflammatory heart disease rate of 2.30 per 100 000 vaccinated patients. The relative risk of inflammatory heart disease for the vaccinated patients compared to the unvaccinated patients was 2.05 times higher rate within the 30-day window (P = .01) and had a trend toward increase in the 60-day window (relative rate = 1.63; P = .07). All vaccinated patients with inflammatory heart disease were treated successfully with 1 death related to a pre-existing condition. CONCLUSIONS: Although rare, the rate of inflammatory heart disease was greater in a SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated population than the unvaccinated population. This risk is eclipsed by the risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 and its associated, commonly severe outcomes. Nevertheless, clinicians and patients should be informed of this risk to facilitate earlier recognition and treatment.

Future Cardiol ; 17(7): 1277-1291, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143374


SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic. In patients with COVID-19, multiple cardiovascular (CV) manifestations have been reported. SARS coronavirus 2 infection can lead to inflammatory CV disease first via takeover of the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 enzyme as a cell receptor as well as the macrophage activation syndrome in severe illness. We review the CV manifestations of COVID-19 and therapeutics under investigation. We discuss the potential long-term CV sequelae after recovery from COVID-19 and the gaps in knowledge including the pathophysiological links between acute cardiac injury, myocardial inflammation and chronic cardiomyopathy. Future investigational efforts could result in significant diagnostic and therapeutic advances potentially impacting the broader field of chronic heart failure and cardiac recovery.

Lay abstract COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic, and many patients infected with this novel virus develop cardiovascular (CV) complications including heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and sudden cardiac death. We will review the pathophysiology behind how a viral infection can place a patient at risk and cause multiple CV diseases. Additionally, we will review our current knowledge regarding treatment for the novel corona virus and long-term risk for patients who recover from COVID-19. At last, we will discuss the future perspective regarding what we can learn about how a virus can cause CV disease and how we can better equip ourselves for future pandemics.

COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases , Myocarditis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
N Engl J Med ; 384(10): 905-914, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998037


BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO number, NCT04501978.).

Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Failure