Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
J Infect Dis ; 2022 Jul 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1961056

ABSTRACT

Detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is essential for diagnosis, treatment, and infection control. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) fails to distinguish acute from resolved infections, as RNA is frequently detected after infectiousness. We hypothesized that nucleocapsid in blood marks acute infection with the potential to enhance isolation and treatment strategies. In a retrospective serosurvey of inpatient and outpatient encounters, we categorized samples along an infection timeline using timing of SARS-CoV-2 testing and symptomatology. Among 1860 specimens from 1607 patients, the highest levels and frequency of antigenemia were observed in samples from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigenemia was higher in seronegative individuals and in those with severe disease. In our analysis, antigenemia exhibited 85.8% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity as a biomarker for acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Thus, antigenemia sensitively and specifically marks acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further study is warranted to determine whether antigenemia may aid individualized assessment of active COVID-19.

2.
Crit Care Med ; 50(2): 212-223, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1735675

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Body temperature trajectories of infected patients are associated with specific immune profiles and survival. We determined the association between temperature trajectories and distinct manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Four hospitals within an academic healthcare system from March 2020 to February 2021. PATIENTS: All adult patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Using a validated group-based trajectory model, we classified patients into four previously defined temperature trajectory subphenotypes using oral temperature measurements from the first 72 hours of hospitalization. Clinical characteristics, biomarkers, and outcomes were compared between subphenotypes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 5,903 hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients were classified into four subphenotypes: hyperthermic slow resolvers (n = 1,452, 25%), hyperthermic fast resolvers (1,469, 25%), normothermics (2,126, 36%), and hypothermics (856, 15%). Hypothermics had abnormal coagulation markers, with the highest d-dimer and fibrin monomers (p < 0.001) and the highest prevalence of cerebrovascular accidents (10%, p = 0.001). The prevalence of venous thromboembolism was significantly different between subphenotypes (p = 0.005), with the highest rate in hypothermics (8.5%) and lowest in hyperthermic slow resolvers (5.1%). Hyperthermic slow resolvers had abnormal inflammatory markers, with the highest C-reactive protein, ferritin, and interleukin-6 (p < 0.001). Hyperthermic slow resolvers had increased odds of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and 30-day inpatient mortality (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13-2.19) compared with hyperthermic fast resolvers. Over the course of the pandemic, we observed a drastic decrease in the prevalence of hyperthermic slow resolvers, from representing 53% of admissions in March 2020 to less than 15% by 2021. We found that dexamethasone use was associated with significant reduction in probability of hyperthermic slow resolvers membership (27% reduction; 95% CI, 23-31%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hypothermics had abnormal coagulation markers, suggesting a hypercoagulable subphenotype. Hyperthermic slow resolvers had elevated inflammatory markers and the highest odds of mortality, suggesting a hyperinflammatory subphenotype. Future work should investigate whether temperature subphenotypes benefit from targeted antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory strategies.


Subject(s)
Body Temperature , COVID-19/pathology , Hyperthermia/pathology , Hypothermia/pathology , Phenotype , Academic Medical Centers , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Biomarkers/blood , Blood Coagulation , Cohort Studies , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Inflammation , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327084

ABSTRACT

Background Reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for diagnosis and treatment of disease as well as infection control and prevention during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Existing nucleic acid tests do not reliably distinguish acute from resolved infection, as residual RNA is frequently detected in the absence of replication-competent virus. We hypothesized that viral nucleocapsid in serum or plasma may be a specific biomarker of acute infection that could enhance isolation and treatment strategies at an individualized level. Methods Samples were obtained from a retrospective serological survey using a convenience sampling method from adult inpatient and outpatient encounters from January through March 2021. Samples were categorized along a timeline of infection (e.g. acute, late presenting, convalescent) based on timing of available SARS-CoV-2 testing and symptomatology. Nucleocapsid was quantified by digital immunoassay on the Quanterix HD-X platform. Results In a large sample of 1860 specimens from 1607 patients, the highest level and frequency of antigenemia were observed in samples obtained during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Levels of antigenemia were highest in samples from seronegative individuals and in those with more severe disease. Using ROC analysis, we found that antigenemia exhibited up to 85.8% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity as a biomarker for acute COVID-19. Conclusions Nucleocapsid antigenemia is a sensitive and specific biomarker for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and may aid in individualized assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection resolution or persistence, although interpretation is limited by absence of a diagnostic gold standard for active infection.

4.
Crit Care Med ; 50(2): 245-255, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672309

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between time period of hospitalization and hospital mortality among critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Observational cohort study from March 6, 2020, to January 31, 2021. SETTING: ICUs at four hospitals within an academic health center network in Atlanta, GA. PATIENTS: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to an ICU during the study period (i.e., Surge 1: March to April, Lull 1: May to June, Surge 2: July to August, Lull 2: September to November, Surge 3: December to January). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,686 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to an ICU during the study period, all-cause hospital mortality was 29.7%. Mortality differed significantly over time: 28.7% in Surge 1, 21.3% in Lull 1, 25.2% in Surge 2, 30.2% in Lull 2, 34.7% in Surge 3 (p = 0.007). Mortality was significantly associated with 1) preexisting risk factors (older age, race, ethnicity, lower body mass index, higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, admission from a nursing home); 2) clinical status at ICU admission (higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, higher d-dimer, higher C-reactive protein); and 3) ICU interventions (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, inhaled vasodilators). After adjusting for baseline and clinical variables, there was a significantly increased risk of mortality associated with admission during Lull 2 (relative risk, 1.37 [95% CI = 1.03-1.81]) and Surge 3 (relative risk, 1.35 [95% CI = 1.04-1.77]) as compared to Surge 1. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased experience and evidence-based treatments, the risk of death for patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019 was highest during the fall and winter of 2020. Reasons for this increased mortality are not clear.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/trends , Intensive Care Units/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Academic Medical Centers , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Time Factors
7.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(5): e0402, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1254873

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure occurs frequently in hospitalized patients and often begins outside the ICU, associated with increased length of stay, cost, and mortality. Delays in decompensation recognition are associated with worse outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to predict acute respiratory failure requiring any advanced respiratory support (including noninvasive ventilation). With the advent of the coronavirus disease pandemic, concern regarding acute respiratory failure has increased. DERIVATION COHORT: All admission encounters from January 2014 to June 2017 from three hospitals in the Emory Healthcare network (82,699). VALIDATION COHORT: External validation cohort: all admission encounters from January 2014 to June 2017 from a fourth hospital in the Emory Healthcare network (40,143). Temporal validation cohort: all admission encounters from February to April 2020 from four hospitals in the Emory Healthcare network coronavirus disease tested (2,564) and coronavirus disease positive (389). PREDICTION MODEL: All admission encounters had vital signs, laboratory, and demographic data extracted. Exclusion criteria included invasive mechanical ventilation started within the operating room or advanced respiratory support within the first 8 hours of admission. Encounters were discretized into hour intervals from 8 hours after admission to discharge or advanced respiratory support initiation and binary labeled for advanced respiratory support. Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment, our eXtreme Gradient Boosting-based algorithm, was compared against Modified Early Warning Score. RESULTS: Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment had significantly better discrimination than Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.85 vs 0.57 [test], 0.84 vs 0.61 [external validation]). Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment maintained a positive predictive value (0.31-0.21) similar to that of Modified Early Warning Score greater than 4 (0.29-0.25) while identifying 6.62 (validation) to 9.58 (test) times more true positives. Furthermore, Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment performed more effectively in temporal validation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.86 [coronavirus disease tested], 0.93 [coronavirus disease positive]), while achieving identifying 4.25-4.51× more true positives. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of Acute Respiratory Failure requiring advanced respiratory support in Advance of Interventions and Treatment is more effective than Modified Early Warning Score in predicting respiratory failure requiring advanced respiratory support at external validation and in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Silent prospective validation necessary before local deployment.

8.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 78(18): 1681-1690, 2021 Sep 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217813

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We evaluated a previously published risk model (Novant model) to identify patients at risk for healthcare facility-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HCFO-CDI) at 2 hospitals within a large health system and compared its predictive value to that of a new model developed based on local findings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study including adult patients admitted from July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2018. Patients with HCFO-CDI who received systemic antibiotics were included as cases and were matched 1 to 1 with controls (who received systemic antibiotics without developing HCFO-CDI). We extracted chart data on patient risk factors for CDI, including those identified in prior studies and those included in the Novant model. We applied the Novant model to our patient population to assess the model's utility and generated a local model using logistic regression-based prediction scores. A receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) score was determined for each model. RESULTS: We included 362 patients, with 161 controls and 161 cases. The Novant model had a ROC-AUC of 0.62 in our population. Our local model using risk factors identifiable at hospital admission included hospitalization within 90 days of admission (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.06-6.04), hematologic malignancy (adjusted OR, 12.87; 95% CI, 3.70-44.80), and solid tumor malignancy (adjusted OR, 4.76; 95% CI, 1.27-17.80) as HCFO-CDI predictors and had a ROC-AUC score of 0.74. CONCLUSION: The Novant model evaluating risk factors identifiable at admission poorly predicted HCFO-CDI in our population, while our local model was a fair predictor. These findings highlight the need for institutions to review local risk factors to adjust modeling for their patient population.


Subject(s)
Clostridioides difficile , Clostridium Infections , Cross Infection , Adult , Case-Control Studies , Clostridioides , Clostridium Infections/diagnosis , Clostridium Infections/epidemiology , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment
11.
Crit Care Med ; 48(11): e1045-e1053, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-720989

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Increasing time to mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019. We examined the impact of time to intubation and use of high-flow nasal cannula on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six coronavirus disease 2019-specific ICUs across four university-affiliated hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia. PATIENTS: Adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who received high-flow nasal cannula or mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 231 patients admitted to the ICU, 109 (47.2%) were treated with high-flow nasal cannula and 97 (42.0%) were intubated without preceding high-flow nasal cannula use. Of those managed with high-flow nasal cannula, 78 (71.6%) ultimately received mechanical ventilation. In total, 175 patients received mechanical ventilation; 44.6% were female, 66.3% were Black, and the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 56-75 yr). Seventy-six patients (43.4%) were intubated within 8 hours of ICU admission, 57 (32.6%) between 8 and 24 hours of admission, and 42 (24.0%) greater than or equal to 24 hours after admission. Patients intubated within 8 hours were more likely to have diabetes, chronic comorbidities, and higher admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. Mortality did not differ by time to intubation (≤ 8 hr: 38.2%; 8-24 hr: 31.6%; ≥ 24 hr: 38.1%; p = 0.7), and there was no association between time to intubation and mortality in adjusted analysis. Similarly, there was no difference in initial static compliance, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay by timing of intubation. High-flow nasal cannula use prior to intubation was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019, neither time from ICU admission to intubation nor high-flow nasal cannula use were associated with increased mortality. This study provides evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure can be managed similarly to hypoxic respiratory failure of other etiologies.


Subject(s)
Cannula/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Aged , COVID-19 , Cannula/adverse effects , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies
12.
Crit Care Med ; 48(9): e799-e804, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-378160

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine mortality rates among adults with critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of patients admitted from March 6, 2020, to April 17, 2020. SETTING: Six coronavirus disease 2019 designated ICUs at three hospitals within an academic health center network in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. PATIENTS: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years old with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV-2 disease who were admitted to an ICU during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 217 critically ill patients, mortality for those who required mechanical ventilation was 35.7% (59/165), with 4.8% of patients (8/165) still on the ventilator at the time of this report. Overall mortality to date in this critically ill cohort is 30.9% (67/217) and 60.4% (131/217) patients have survived to hospital discharge. Mortality was significantly associated with older age, lower body mass index, chronic renal disease, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, lower PaO2/FIO2 ratio, higher D-dimer, higher C-reactive protein, and receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, or vasodilator therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multiple reports of mortality rates exceeding 50% among critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019, particularly among those requiring mechanical ventilation, our early experience indicates that many patients survive their critical illness.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Aged , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness , Female , Georgia/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL