Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 52
Filter
2.
Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care ; 25(4): 277-281, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1891119

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the profile of critical care services internationally, as professionals around the globe have struggled to rise to the unprecedented challenge faced, both in terms of individual patient management and the sheer volume of patients that require treatment and management in intensive care. This review article sets out key priorities in nutritional interventions during the patient journey, both in the acute and recovery phases. RECENT FINDINGS: The current review covers the care of the acutely unwell patient, and the evidence base for nutritional interventions in the COVID-19 population. One of the biggest differences in caring for critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure from COVID-19 is often the time prior to intubation. This represents specific nutritional challenges, as does nursing patients in the prone position or in the setting of limited resources. This article goes on to discuss nutritional support for COVID-19 sufferers as they transition through hospital wards and into the community. SUMMARY: Nutritional support of patients with severe COVID-19 is essential. Given the longer duration of their critical illness, combined with hypermetabolism and energy expenditure, patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk for malnutrition during and after their hospital stay.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Nutritional Support , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
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.

4.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(7): 700-714, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1886186

ABSTRACT

Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Research Design
6.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(11): 1290-1299, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874930

ABSTRACT

Rationale: GM-CSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) has emerged as a promising target against the hyperactive host immune response associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Objectives: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of gimsilumab, an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of hospitalized patients with elevated inflammatory markers and hypoxemia secondary to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, BREATHE (Better Respiratory Education and Treatment Help Empower), at 21 locations in the United States. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive two doses of intravenous gimsilumab or placebo 1 week apart. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality rate at Day 43. Key secondary outcomes were ventilator-free survival rate, ventilator-free days, and time to hospital discharge. Enrollment was halted early for futility based on an interim analysis. Measurements and Main Results: Of the planned 270 patients, 225 were randomized and dosed; 44.9% of patients were Hispanic or Latino. The gimsilumab and placebo groups experienced an all-cause mortality rate at Day 43 of 28.3% and 23.2%, respectively (adjusted difference = 5% vs. placebo; 95% confidence interval [-6 to 17]; P = 0.377). Overall mortality rates at 24 weeks were similar across the treatment arms. The key secondary endpoints demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Despite the high background use of corticosteroids and anticoagulants, adverse events were generally balanced between treatment groups. Conclusions: Gimsilumab did not improve mortality or other key clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and evidence of systemic inflammation. The utility of anti-GM-CSF therapy for COVID-19 remains unclear. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04351243).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Inflammation
7.
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.

9.
ASAIO J ; 2022 May 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1840104

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has increased the demand for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and introduced distinct challenges to patient selection for ECMO. Standardized processes for patient selection amidst resource limitations are lacking, and data on ECMO consults are underreported. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive adult ECMO consults for acute respiratory failure received at a single academic medical center from April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and evaluated the implementation of a multidisciplinary selection committee (ECMO Council) and standardized framework for patient selection for ECMO. During the 334-day period, there were 202 total ECMO consults; 174 (86.1%) included a diagnosis of COVID-19. Among all consults, 157 (77.7%) were declined and 41 (20.3%) resulted in the initiation of ECMO. Frequent reasons for decline included the presence of multiple relative contraindications (n = 33), age greater than 60 years (n = 32), and resource limitations (n = 27). The ECMO Council deliberated on every case in which an absolute contraindication was not present (n = 96) via an electronic teleconference platform. Utilizing multidisciplinary consensus together with a standardized process for patient selection in ECMO is feasible during a pandemic and may be reliably exercised over time. Whether such an approach is feasible at other centers remains unknown.

10.
ASAIO J ; 68(8): 1002-1009, 2022 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831485

ABSTRACT

Refractory hypoxemia despite the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome remains a challenging problem. A single ECMO circuit may not provide adequate physiologic support in the setting of an elevated cardiac output, physiologic demand, and impaired gas exchange. In select patients with refractory hypoxemia, addition of a second ECMO circuit in parallel can improve oxygenation, facilitate lung protective ventilation, awakening, and physical rehabilitation. We report the largest case series to date of patients receiving ECMO circuits in parallel and the first to report this approach in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Hypoxia/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology
11.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(6): 612-621, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1798074

ABSTRACT

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen , Pandemics , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , Wakefulness
12.
Trials ; 23(1): 273, 2022 Apr 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1779667

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a heterogeneous outcome in individuals from remaining asymptomatic to death. In a majority of cases, mild symptoms are present that do not require hospitalization and can be successfully treated in the outpatient setting, though symptoms may persist for a long duration. We hypothesize that drugs suitable for decentralized study in outpatients will have efficacy among infected outpatients METHODS: The TREAT NOW platform is designed to accommodate testing multiple agents with the ability to incorporate new agents in the future. TREAT NOW is an adaptive, blinded, multi-center, placebo-controlled superiority randomized clinical trial which started with two active therapies (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir) and placebo, with the hydroxychloroquine arm dropped shortly after enrollment began due to external evidence. Each arm has a target enrollment of 300 participants who will be randomly assigned in an equal allocation to receive either an active therapy or placebo twice daily for 14 days with daily electronic surveys collected over days 1 through 16 and on day 29 to evaluate symptoms and a modified COVID-19 ordinal outcome scale. Participants are enrolled remotely by telephone and consented with a digital interface, study drug is overnight mailed to study participants, and data collection occurs electronically without in-person interactions. DISCUSSION: If effective treatments for COVID-19 can be identified for individuals in the outpatient setting before they advance to severe disease, it will prevent progression to more severe disease, reduce the need for hospitalization, and shorten the duration of symptoms. The novel decentralized, "no touch" approach used by the TREAT NOW platform has distinction advantages over traditional in-person trials to reach broader populations and perform study procedures in a pragmatic yet rigorous manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04372628. Registered on April 30, 2020. First posted on May 4, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Outpatients , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
13.
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
14.
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
15.
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
16.
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
17.
J Infect Dis ; 225(10): 1694-1700, 2022 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1704377

ABSTRACT

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization was evaluated among immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) during March-August 2021 using a case-control design. Among 1669 hospitalized COVID-19 cases (11% fully vaccinated) and 1950 RT-PCR-negative controls (54% fully vaccinated), VE was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-98%) among patients with no chronic medical conditions and 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%) among patients with ≥ 3 categories of conditions. VE was similar between those aged 18-64 years versus ≥65 years (P > .05). VE against severe COVID-19 was very high among adults without chronic conditions and lessened with increasing comorbidity burden.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Chronic Disease , Hospitalization , Humans , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
18.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2021 Aug 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700456

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% CI: 80.7 to 91.3%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI: 79.3 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI: 20.8 to 82.6%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.6 to 94.8%). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

19.
Crit Care Explor ; 4(1): e0618, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1635227

ABSTRACT

To test the hypothesis that relatively lower clot strength on thromboelastography maximum amplitude (MA) is associated with development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic medical center in Nashville, TN. PATIENTS: Patients with acute respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the adult medical ICU without known VTE at enrollment. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-eight consecutive critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Thromboelastography parameters and conventional coagulation parameters were measured on days 0 (within 48 hr of ICU admission), 3, 5, and 7 after enrollment. The primary outcome was diagnosis of VTE with confirmed deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism by clinical imaging or autopsy. Twenty-six patients developed a VTE. Multivariable regression controlling for antiplatelet exposure and anticoagulation dose with death as a competing risk found that lower MA was associated with increased risk of VTE. Each 1 mm increase in enrollment and peak MA was associated with an 8% and 14% decrease in the risk of VTE, respectively (enrollment MA: subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; p = 0.003 and peak MA: SHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; p < 0.001). Lower enrollment platelet counts and fibrinogen levels were also associated with increased risk of VTE (p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively). Platelet count and fibrinogen level were positively associated with MA (multivariable model: adjusted R 2 = 0.51; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When controlling for the competing risk of death, lower enrollment and peak MA were associated with increased risk of VTE. Lower platelet counts and fibrinogen levels at enrollment were associated with increased risk of VTE. The association of diminished MA, platelet counts, and fibrinogen with VTE may suggest a relative consumptive coagulopathy in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

20.
iScience ; 25(1): 103602, 2022 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561444

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed an urgent need for rapid profiling of neutralizing antibody responses and development of antibody therapeutics. The current Food and Drug Administration-approved serological tests do not measure antibody-mediated viral neutralization, and there is a need for standardized quantitative neutralization assays. We report a high-throughput two-step profiling approach for identifying neutralizing convalescent plasma. Screening and downselection for serum antibody binding to the receptor-binding domain are followed by quantitative neutralization testing using a chimeric vesicular stomatitis virus expressing spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a real-time cell analysis assay. This approach enables a predictive screening process for identifying plasma units that neutralize SARS-CoV-2. To calibrate antibody neutralizing activity in serum from convalescent plasma donors, we introduce a neutralizing antibody standard reagent composed of two human antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV strains, including SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Our results provide a framework for establishing a standardized assessment of antibody-based interventions against COVID-19.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL