Inhaled prostacyclin therapy in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in significant hypoxia, and ARDS is the central pathology of COVID-19. Inhaled prostacyclin has been proposed as a therapy for ARDS, but data regarding its role in this syndrome are unavailable. Therefore, we investigated whether inhaled prostacyclin would affect the oxygenation and survival of patients suffering from ARDS. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled single-blind multicenter trial across Germany. The trial was conducted from March 2019 with final follow-up on 12th of August 2021. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS were included and randomized to receive either inhaled prostacyclin (3 times/day for 5 days) or sodium chloride (Placebo). The primary outcome was the oxygenation index in the intervention and control groups on Day 5 of therapy. Secondary outcomes were mortality, secondary organ failure, disease severity and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 707 patients approached 150 patients were randomized to receive inhaled prostacyclin (n = 73) or sodium chloride (n = 77). Data from 144 patients were analyzed. The baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio did not differ between groups. The primary analysis of the study was negative, and prostacyclin improved oxygenation by 20 mmHg more than Placebo (p = 0.17). Secondary analysis showed that the oxygenation was significantly improved in patients with ARDS who were COVID-19-positive (34 mmHg, p = 0.04). Mortality did not differ between groups. Secondary organ failure and adverse events were similar in the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The primary result of our study was negative. Our data suggest that inhaled prostacyclin might be beneficial treatment in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tübingen (899/2018AMG1) and the corresponding ethical review boards of all participating centers. The trial was also approved by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM, EudraCT No. 2016003168-37) and registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03111212) on April 6th 2017.

Membrane oxygenator longevity was higher in argatroban-treated patients undergoing vvECMO.

BACKGROUND: In severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) can be a lifesaver. However, anticoagulation therapy is mandatory because the nonendothelial extracorporeal surface increases the risk of thromboembolic problems. Heparin is still the most common anticoagulant, but argatroban could be an alternative. This work investigates whether argatroban offers a therapeutic advantage over heparin during vvECMO. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent vvECMO for severe ARDS and received heparin or argatroban as anticoagulation therapy. Demographic variables, intensive care unit (ICU) treatment and outcome parameters were evaluated. The primary outcome parameter was the operating time of the membrane oxygenator normalized to the duration of vvECMO treatment. Secondary outcome parameters were transfusion requirements normalized to the duration of vvECMO therapy. RESULTS: Fifty seven patients from January 2019 to February 2021 underwent vvECMO and were included in this study. Thirty three patients received heparin and 24 patients argatroban as anticoagulatory therapy. The groups did not differ in demographics, ICU scoring systems, or comorbidities. Platelet counts and partial prothrombin time did not differ between the two groups during the first 6 days of vvECMO. The argatroban group had lower requirements for red blood cells, platelets and fresh frozen plasma. The mean runtime of the individual membrane oxygenator increased from 12.3 days (heparin group) to 16.6 days in the argatroban group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that argatroban can be considered as anticoagulant during vvECMO.

COVID-19 does not influence functional status after ARDS therapy.

RATIONALE: Health-related quality of life after surviving acute respiratory distress syndrome has come into focus in recent years, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: A total of 144 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 or of other origin were recruited in a randomized multicenter trial. METHODS: Clinical data during intensive care treatment and data up to 180 days after study inclusion were collected. Changes in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score were used to quantify disease severity. Disability was assessed using the Barthel index on days 1, 28, 90, and 180. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality rate and morbidity after 180 days were compared between patients with and without COVID-19. Independent risk factors associated with high disability were identified using a binary logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS: The SOFA score at day 5 was an independent risk factor for high disability in both groups, and score dynamic within the first 5 days significantly impacted disability in the non-COVID group. Mortality after 180 days and impairment measured by the Barthel index did not differ between patients with and without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Resolution of organ dysfunction within the first 5 days significantly impacts long-term morbidity. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 was not associated with increased mortality or morbidity.

COVID-19 patient serum less potently inhibits ACE2-RBD binding for various SARS-CoV-2 RBD mutants.

As global vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 proceed, there is particular interest in the longevity of immune protection, especially with regard to increasingly infectious virus variants. Neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 are promising correlates of protective immunity and have been successfully used for prevention and therapy. As SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) are known to affect binding to the ACE2 receptor and by extension neutralizing activity, we developed a bead-based multiplex ACE2-RBD inhibition assay (RBDCoV-ACE2) as a highly scalable, time-, cost-, and material-saving alternative to infectious live-virus neutralization tests. By mimicking the interaction between ACE2 and the RBD, this serological multiplex assay allows the simultaneous analysis of ACE2 binding inhibition to the RBDs of all SARS-CoV-2 VOCs and variants of interest (VOIs) in a single well. Following validation against a classical virus neutralization test and comparison of performance against a commercially available assay, we analyzed 266 serum samples from 168 COVID-19 patients of varying severity. ACE2 binding inhibition was reduced for ten out of eleven variants examined compared to wild-type, especially for those displaying the E484K mutation such as VOCs beta and gamma. ACE2 binding inhibition, while highly individualistic, positively correlated with IgG levels. ACE2 binding inhibition also correlated with disease severity up to WHO grade 7, after which it reduced.

Machine learning identifies ICU outcome predictors in a multicenter COVID-19 cohort.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Resources are heavily utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, risk stratification and prediction of SARS-CoV-2 patient clinical outcomes upon ICU admission remain inadequate. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model, based on retrospective & prospective clinical data, to stratify patient risk and predict ICU survival and outcomes. METHODS: A Germany-wide electronic registry was established to pseudonymously collect admission, therapeutic and discharge information of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients retrospectively and prospectively. Machine learning approaches were evaluated for the accuracy and interpretability of predictions. The Explainable Boosting Machine approach was selected as the most suitable method. Individual, non-linear shape functions for predictive parameters and parameter interactions are reported. RESULTS: 1039 patients were included in the Explainable Boosting Machine model, 596 patients retrospectively collected, and 443 patients prospectively collected. The model for prediction of general ICU outcome was shown to be more reliable to predict "survival". Age, inflammatory and thrombotic activity, and severity of ARDS at ICU admission were shown to be predictive of ICU survival. Patients' age, pulmonary dysfunction and transfer from an external institution were predictors for ECMO therapy. The interaction of patient age with D-dimer levels on admission and creatinine levels with SOFA score without GCS were predictors for renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Using Explainable Boosting Machine analysis, we confirmed and weighed previously reported and identified novel predictors for outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Using this strategy, predictive modeling of COVID-19 ICU patient outcomes can be performed overcoming the limitations of linear regression models. Trial registration "ClinicalTrials" (clinicaltrials.gov) under NCT04455451.

Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in vaccinated individuals.

SARS-CoV-2 is evolving with mutations in the receptor binding domain (RBD) being of particular concern. It is important to know how much cross-protection is offered between strains following vaccination or infection. Here, we obtain serum and saliva samples from groups of vaccinated (Pfizer BNT-162b2), infected and uninfected individuals and characterize the antibody response to RBD mutant strains. Vaccinated individuals have a robust humoral response after the second dose and have high IgG antibody titers in the saliva. Antibody responses however show considerable differences in binding to RBD mutants of emerging variants of concern and substantial reduction in RBD binding and neutralization is observed against a patient-isolated South African variant. Taken together our data reinforce the importance of the second dose of Pfizer BNT-162b2 to acquire high levels of neutralizing antibodies and high antibody titers in saliva suggest that vaccinated individuals may have reduced transmission potential. Substantially reduced neutralization for the South African variant further highlights the importance of surveillance strategies to detect new variants and targeting these in future vaccines.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Severe COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic reached Germany in spring 2020. No proven treatment for SARS-CoV-2 was available at that time, especially for severe COVID-19-induced ARDS. We determined whether the infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) would help to improve pulmonary function and overall outcome in patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS. We offered MSC infusion as an extended indication to all critically ill COVID-19 patients with a Horovitz index <100. We treated 5 out of 23 patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS with an infusion of MSCs. One million MSCs/kg body weight was infused over 30 minutes, and the process was repeated in 3 patients twice and in 2 patients 3 times. RESULT: Four out of 5 MSC-treated patients compared to 50% of control patients (9 out of 18) received ECMO support (80%). The MSC group showed a higher Murray score on admission than control patients, reflecting more severe pulmonary compromise (3.5 ± 0.2 versus 2.8 ± 0.3). MSC infusion was safe and well tolerated. The MSC group had a significantly higher Horovitz score on discharge than the control group. Compared to controls, patients with MSC treatment showed a significantly lower Murray score upon discharge than controls. In the MSC group, 4 out of 5 patients (80%) survived to discharge and exhibited good pulmonary function, whereas only 8 out of 18 patients (45%) in the control group survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: MSC infusion is a safe treatment for COVID-19 ARDS that improves pulmonary function and overall outcome in this patient population.

COVID-19 Related Cardiovascular Comorbidities and Complications in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic-review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and complications in ICU-admitted coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Web of Science databases were referenced until November 25, 2020. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted retrospective and prospective observational studies on critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Only studies reporting on cardiovascular comorbidities and complications during ICU therapy were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: We calculated the pooled prevalence by a random-effects model and determined heterogeneity by Higgins' I 2 test. RESULTS: Of the 6346 studies retrieved, 29 were included in this review. The most common cardiovascular comorbidity was arterial hypertension (50%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-058; I 2 = 94.8%, low quality of evidence). Among cardiovascular complications in the ICU, shock (of any course) was most common, being present in 39% of the patients (95% CI, 0.20-0.59; I 2 = 95.6%; 6 studies). Seventy-four percent of patients in the ICU required vasopressors to maintain target blood pressure (95% CI, 0.58-0.88; I 2 = 93.6%; 8 studies), and 30% of patients developed cardiac injury in the ICU (95% CI, 0.19-0.42; I 2 = 91%; 14 studies). Severe heterogeneity existed among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular complications are common in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for COVID-19. However, the existing evidence is highly heterogeneous in terms of study design and outcome measurements. Thus, prospective, observational studies are needed to determine the impact of cardiovascular complications on patient outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.