Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 63
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831048

ABSTRACT

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with COVID-19 therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies.. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and Biologic License Application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

2.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1824559

ABSTRACT

Anti-spike monoclonal antibody treatment of 180 B-cell-depleted patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 resulted in good outcomes overall, with only 12.2% progressing to severe disease, 9.4% requiring hospitalization, 0.6% requiring mechanical ventilation, no deaths within 30 days, and 1.8% developing persistent COVID-19. Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies appear effective in this immunocompromised population.

3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(4): e227038, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1787607

ABSTRACT

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021. Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose. Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

4.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 97(2): 327-332, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665267

ABSTRACT

Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies have proven invaluable in preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death. The rise of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant begs the question of whether monoclonal antibodies maintain similar efficacy now as they had when the alpha and beta variants predominated, when they were first assessed and approved. We used a retrospective cohort to compare rates of severe outcomes in an epoch in which alpha and beta were predominant compared with delta. A total of 5356 patients were infused during the alpha/beta variant-predominant (n=4874) and delta variant-predominant (n=482) era. Overall, odds of severe infection were 3.0% of patients in the alpha/beta-predominant era compared with 4.9% in the delta-predominant cohort. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was higher for severe disease in the delta era (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.89), particularly when adjusted for Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.08). The higher odds of severe infection could be due to a more virulent delta variant, although the possibility of decreased anti-spike monoclonal antibody effectiveness in the clinical setting cannot be excluded. Research into the most effective strategies for using and improving anti-spike monoclonals for the treatment of emerging variants is warranted.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Retrospective Studies , United States/epidemiology
5.
J Prim Care Community Health ; 13: 21501319211069748, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1651044

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated risk score for COVID-19 positive outpatients to predict 30-day risk of hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study of 67 470 patients with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test between March 12, 2020 and February 8, 2021. Risk scores were calculated based on data in the chart at the time of the incident infection. RESULTS: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score consisted of 13 components included age, sex, chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, end stage liver disease, end stage renal disease, hypertension, immune compromised, nursing home resident, and pregnant. Univariate analysis showed all components, except pregnancy, have significant (P < .001) association with admission. The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score showed a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.837 for the prediction of admission for this large cohort of COVID-19 positive patients. CONCLUSION: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score is a simple score that is easily integrated into the EHR with excellent predictive performance for severe COVID-19. It can be leveraged to stratify risk for severe COVID-19 at initial contact, when considering therapeutics or in the allocation of vaccine supply.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Electronic Health Records , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord ; 2022 Jan 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1650575

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the radiographic resolution of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) examinations in patients diagnosed with acute PE while hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to understand the mid-term and long-term implications of anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We identified patients with acute PE per CECT and at least one follow-up CECT from March 11, 2020, to May 27, 2021, using a prospective registry of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection receiving care within a multicenter Health System. Initial and follow-up CECT examinations were reviewed independently by two radiologists to evaluate for PE resolution. The Modified Miller Score was used to assess for thrombus burden at diagnosis and on follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 6070 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection, 5.7% (348/6070) were diagnosed with acute PE and 13.5% (47/348) had a follow-up CECT examination. The mean ± standard deviation time to follow-up imaging was 44 ± 48 days (range, 3-161 days). Of 47 patients, 47 (72.3%) had radiographic resolution of PE, with a mean time to follow-up of 48 ± 43 days (range, 6-239 days). All patients received anticoagulation monotherapy for a mean of 149 ± 95 days and this included apixaban (63.8%), warfarin (12.8%), and rivaroxaban (8.5%), among others. The mean Modified Miller Score at PE diagnosis and follow-up was 4.8 ± 4.2 (range, 1-14) and 1.4 ± 3.3 (range, 0-16; P < .0001), respectively. Nine patients (19%) died at a mean of 13 ± 8 days after follow-up CECT (range, 1-27 days) and at a mean of 28 ± 16 days after admission (range, 11-68 days). Seen of the nine deaths (78%) deaths were associated with progression of COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have a clinically apparent 5.7% rate of developing PE. In patients with follow-up imaging, 72.3% had radiographic thrombus resolution at a mean of 44 days while on anticoagulation. Prospective studies of the natural history of PEs with COVID-19 that include systematic follow-up imaging are warranted to help guide anticoagulation recommendations.

7.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):436-437, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564887

ABSTRACT

Background The multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GIP) is a convenient and quick diagnostic test for determining the infectious etiology of diarrhea. It identifies several of the most common pathogens associated with gastroenteritis. However, it is expensive, and test results may not impact care, given that several of the pathogens in the panel are managed expectantly. We describe our experience with a diagnostic stewardship initiative to resolve the overuse of this testing method. Methods We performed a pre/post study of GIPs ordered for inpatients 18 years old and older from December 19, 2018, to December 18, 2020, at Mayo Clinic hospital in Rochester, Minnesota. GIP orders for inpatients were limited to the first 72 hours of hospitalization starting December 19, 2019. Orders after 72 hours were encouraged to be changed to Clostridioides difficile NAAT testing or sent to an infectious disease provider to override on a case-by-case basis. Our hospitals used BioFire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah). Results A total of 2,641 GIPs were performed during the study period. There were 1,568 GIPs (3.3/100 hospitalizations) in the pre-intervention period compared to 1,073 (2.6/100 hospitalizations) post-intervention, representing a drop of 21.2%. The most common pathogen detected was C. difficile (toxin A/B) (48.8%, n=402), followed by norovirus (17.5%, n=144). The overall test positivity rate was 27.9% (n=736). The test positivity rate decreased 1.8% from 28.6% (n=448) to 26.8% (n=288) after the restriction (p=0.33). The proportion of C. difficile among all pathogens detected increased from 48.5% to 49.7% (p=0.67). Table 1. Pre- and Post-Intervention Test Positivity Rate of Specific Pathogens in GIP Conclusion Our study showed that restricting the ordering of GIP to the first 72 hours of hospitalization and directing providers to standalone C. difficile NAAT testing resulted in a reduction of GIPs performed. There were marginal changes in the test positivity rate of GIP. A limitation of our study is that the timing of post-intervention coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, which had unpredictable effects on hospital practice and patient admissions. Ideally, future quality improvement projects should increase the test positivity of pathogens other than C. difficile while lowering the GIP use in diagnosing C. difficile colitis. Disclosures John C. O'Horo, Sr., MD, MPH, Bates College and Elsevier Inc (Consultant)

8.
Med (N Y) ; 3(1): 28-41.e8, 2022 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1559964

ABSTRACT

Background: mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines. Methods: We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing. Findings: Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VEmRNA-1273: 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VEBNT162b2: 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VEmRNA-1273: 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VEBNT162b2: 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VEmRNA-1273: 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VEBNT162b2: 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55-0.67). Conclusions: Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions. Funding: This study was funded by nference.

9.
JAC Antimicrob Resist ; 3(4): dlab170, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510986

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Despite low rates of bacterial coinfection in patients admitted with COVID-19, antimicrobials are frequently prescribed. Our primary objective was to evaluate antimicrobial prescribing over time in patients admitted with COVID-19. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the role of ID providers in antimicrobial utilization, describe the rate of confirmed bacterial infection and determine factors associated with empirical antimicrobial prescribing in COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed for adult patients admitted to a tertiary care centre with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 30 November 2020. Patient demographics, disease severity, risk factors for severe disease, clinical outcomes, antimicrobial prescribing and respiratory microbiological testing were collected and analysed. Prescribing trends were evaluated by month, and factors contributing to prescribing were established using univariate and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Antibiotics were prescribed during admission in 37.9% of the study cohort, with 85.1% of patients who received antibiotics having therapy initiated within 48 h of admission. Antibiotic prescribing incidence increased with disease. Over the study period, antimicrobial prescribing rates decreased by 8.7% per month. Multivariable analysis found ICU admission, obtainment of procalcitonin values, intubation, heart failure, haemodialysis and nursing home residence were associated with empirical antimicrobial prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing in patients with viral syndromes like COVID-19 continues to represent an area of concern. Antimicrobial stewardship efforts during COVID-19 should consider patient-specific factors associated with antibiotic prescribing. Recognition of such factors, in combination with application of well-established antimicrobial stewardship tactics, may serve to impact antimicrobial prescribing trends, even as patient volumes rise.

12.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2132540, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490645

ABSTRACT

Importance: Continuous assessment of the effectiveness and safety of the US Food and Drug Administration-authorized SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to amplify transparency, build public trust, and ultimately improve overall health outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used large-scale longitudinal curation of electronic health records from the multistate Mayo Clinic Health System (Minnesota, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, and Iowa) to identify vaccinated and unvaccinated adults between February 27 and July 22, 2021. The unvaccinated cohort was matched on a propensity score derived from age, sex, zip code, race, ethnicity, and previous number of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction tests. The final study cohort consisted of 8889 patients in the vaccinated group and 88 898 unvaccinated matched patients. Exposure: Single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated control cohorts, measured by SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing. Results: The study was composed of 8889 vaccinated patients (4491 men [50.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.4 [16.9] years) and 88 898 unvaccinated patients (44 748 men [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [16.7] years). The incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated control cohorts was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.20-0.34) (60 of 8889 vaccinated patients vs 2236 of 88 898 unvaccinated individuals), which corresponds to an effectiveness of 73.6% (95% CI, 65.9%-79.9%) and a 3.73-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings are consistent with the clinical trial-reported efficacy of Ad26.COV2.S and the first retrospective analysis, suggesting that the vaccine is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the spread of variants such as Alpha or Delta that were not present in the original studies, and reaffirm the urgent need to continue mass vaccination efforts globally.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Drug Evaluation , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
13.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475782

ABSTRACT

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with COVID-19 therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies.. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and Biologic License Application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

14.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475781

ABSTRACT

Given the urgent need for treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy's efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

15.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(6): ofab255, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462454

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for emergency use treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients at high risk for developing severe disease or hospitalization. Their safety and efficacy have not been specifically evaluated in solid organ transplant recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed solid organ transplant recipients who received monoclonal antibody infusion for COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites through January 23, 2021. Outcomes included emergency department visit, hospitalization, mortality, and allograft rejection. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were treated, most commonly with bamlanivimab (75.3%). The median age was 59 years, 63% were male, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 5. Transplant type included 41 kidney (56.2%), 13 liver (17.8%), 11 heart (15.1%), 4 kidney-pancreas (5.5%), 2 lung (2.7%), 1 heart-liver, and 1 pancreas. Eleven (15.1%) patients had an emergency department visit within 28 days of infusion, including 9 (12.3%) who were hospitalized for a median of 4 days. One patient required intensive care unit admission for a nonrespiratory complication. No patients required mechanical ventilation, died, or experienced rejection. Ten adverse events occurred, with 1 seeking medical evaluation. Hypertension was associated with hospital admission (P < .05), while other baseline characteristics were similar. The median time from symptom onset to antibody administration was 4 days in nonhospitalized patients compared with 6 days among hospitalized patients (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody treatment has favorable outcomes with minimal adverse effects in solid organ transplant recipients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Earlier administration of monoclonal antibody therapy appears to be more efficacious.

16.
Cureus ; 12(7): e9381, 2020 Jul 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456512

ABSTRACT

Inadequate adherence to best practice guidelines may have a negative impact on the processes of critical care and patient outcomes. Instant gratification has been used to modify human behavior in industries such as gaming, lottery, and social media. We hypothesize that, if properly and purposefully utilized, IG can become a successful tool for encouraging best practice guideline adherence among critical care providers. Four major databases were searched with a medial librarian. Covidence application was used to identify studies pertaining to the instant gratification being used to improve provider adherence with best practice guidelines. A total of 712 studies were identified, and, through duplicates removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text screening, a total of 13 studies were included in the final review. The exclusion criteria used included the following: no provider gratification, wrong focus/intervention, wrong study design, patient-focused intervention, not generalizable, and no conclusion. There is a knowledge gap regarding instant gratification utilization to influence practice guideline adherence among providers. The intervention functions of the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) were evident, especially 'persuasion' and 'incentivization', which are most pertinent to our field. The restorative process that promotes positive reinforcement can be a potential solution for alleviating inadequacies in guideline adherence. Examining interventions based on functions of the BCW has shown that an instant gratification process may have the potential in altering critical care providers' behavior and improving guideline adherence. This review is the first step towards creating smart algorithms to instantly alert providers for their actions compliant with best practices. Developing, testing, and validating the algorithms will be the next several steps.

17.
J Clin Invest ; 131(19)2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448085

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/mortality , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , Survival Rate
18.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(9): e30157, 2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443978

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has strikingly heterogeneous clinical manifestations, with most individuals contracting mild disease but a substantial minority experiencing fulminant cardiopulmonary symptoms or death. The clinical covariates and the laboratory tests performed on a patient provide robust statistics to guide clinical treatment. Deep learning approaches on a data set of this nature enable patient stratification and provide methods to guide clinical treatment. OBJECTIVE: Here, we report on the development and prospective validation of a state-of-the-art machine learning model to provide mortality prediction shortly after confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Mayo Clinic patient population. METHODS: We retrospectively constructed one of the largest reported and most geographically diverse laboratory information system and electronic health record of COVID-19 data sets in the published literature, which included 11,807 patients residing in 41 states of the United States of America and treated at medical sites across 5 states in 3 time zones. Traditional machine learning models were evaluated independently as well as in a stacked learner approach by using AutoGluon, and various recurrent neural network architectures were considered. The traditional machine learning models were implemented using the AutoGluon-Tabular framework, whereas the recurrent neural networks utilized the TensorFlow Keras framework. We trained these models to operate solely using routine laboratory measurements and clinical covariates available within 72 hours of a patient's first positive COVID-19 nucleic acid test result. RESULTS: The GRU-D recurrent neural network achieved peak cross-validation performance with 0.938 (SE 0.004) as the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. This model retained strong performance by reducing the follow-up time to 12 hours (0.916 [SE 0.005] AUROC), and the leave-one-out feature importance analysis indicated that the most independently valuable features were age, Charlson comorbidity index, minimum oxygen saturation, fibrinogen level, and serum iron level. In the prospective testing cohort, this model provided an AUROC of 0.901 and a statistically significant difference in survival (P<.001, hazard ratio for those predicted to survive, 95% CI 0.043-0.106). CONCLUSIONS: Our deep learning approach using GRU-D provides an alert system to flag mortality for COVID-19-positive patients by using clinical covariates and laboratory values within a 72-hour window after the first positive nucleic acid test result.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Laboratory Information Systems , Deep Learning , Algorithms , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Chest ; 160(2): e244, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1411945
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL