Intravenous Aviptadil and Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19-Associated Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in the USA (Tesico): A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

Diaphragmatic thickening fraction as a predictor for intubation in patients with COVID-19

The diaphragm is the primary respiratory muscle, and its dysfunction predisposes patients to respiratory failure. Diaphragm function can be assessed by ultrasound measurement - Diaphragmatic Thickening Fraction (DTF). Respiratory viral infections (including SARS-CoV-2) can cause diaphragm dysfunction. Our case series follows three patients infected with COVID-19 pneumonia. Bedside diaphragmatic ultrasound assessments measuring DTF were trended over patient's hospital course until clinical improvement (i.e., off oxygen) or worsening (i.e., intubation). Our preliminary results suggest a correlation between DTF trends and respiratory status in patients requiring 100% oxygen. Further studies are required to assess DTF and its possible correlation to respiratory failure

African Americans Possessed High Prevalence of Comorbidities and Frequent Abdominal Symptoms, and Comprised A Disproportionate Share of Covid-19 Mortality among 9,873 Us- Hospitalized Patients Early in the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Identifying clinical characteristics and outcomes of different ethnicities in the US may inform treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Aim of this study is to identify predictors of mortality among US races/ethnicities. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively analyzed de-identified data from 9,873 COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized at 15 US hospital centers in 11 states (March 2020-November 2020). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to identify predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Among the 9,873 patients, there were 64.1% African Americans (AA), 19.8% Caucasians, 10.4% Hispanics, and 5.7% Asians, with 50.7% female. Males showed higher in-hospital mortality (20.9% vs. 15.3%, p=0.001). Non- survivors were significantly older (67 vs. 61 years) than survivors. Patients in New York had the highest in-hospital mortality (OR=3.54 (3.03 - 4.14)). AA patients possessed higher prevalence of comorbidities, had longer hospital stay, higher ICU admission rates, increased requirement for mechanical ventilation and higher in-hospital mortality compared to other races/ethnicities. Gastrointestinal symptoms (GI), particularly diarrhea, were more common among minority patients. Among GI symptoms and laboratory findings, abdominal pain (5.3%, p=0.03), elevated AST (n=2653, 50.2%, p=<0.001, OR=2.18), bilirubin (n=577, 12.9%, p=0.01) and low albumin levels (n=361, 19.1%, p=0.03) were associated with mortality. Multivariate analysis (adjusted for age, sex, race, geographic location) indicates that patients with asthma, COPD, cardiac disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, immunocompromised status, shortness of breath and cough possess higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Among laboratory parameters, patients with lymphocytopenia (OR2=2.50), lymphocytosis (OR2=1.41), and elevations of serum CRP (OR2=4.19), CPK (OR2=1.43), LDH (OR2=2.10), troponin (OR2=2.91), ferritin (OR2=1.88), AST (OR2=2.18), D-dimer (OR2=2.75) are more prone to death. Patients on glucocorticoids (OR2=1.49) and mechanical ventilation (OR2=9.78) have higher in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that older age, male sex, AA race, and hospitalization in New York were associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates from COVID-19 in early pandemic stages. Other predictors of mortality included the presence of comorbidities, shortness of breath, cough elevated serum inflammatory markers, altered lymphocyte count, elevated AST, and low serum albumin. AA patients comprised a disproportionate share of COVID-19 death in the US during 2020 relative to other races/ethnicities

African Americans Possessed High Prevalence of Comorbidities and Frequent Abdominal Symptoms, and Comprised A Disproportionate Share of Covid-19 Mortality among 9,873 Us- Hospitalized Patients Early in the Pandemic

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Identifying clinical characteristics and outcomes of different ethnicities in the US may inform treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Aim of this study is to identify predictors of mortality among US races/ethnicities. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively analyzed de-identified data from 9,873 COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized at 15 US hospital centers in 11 states (March 2020-November 2020). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to identify predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Among the 9,873 patients, there were 64.1% African Americans (AA), 19.8% Caucasians, 10.4% Hispanics, and 5.7% Asians, with 50.7% female. Males showed higher in-hospital mortality (20.9% vs. 15.3%, p=0.001). Non- survivors were significantly older (67 vs. 61 years) than survivors. Patients in New York had the highest in-hospital mortality (OR=3.54 (3.03 - 4.14)). AA patients possessed higher prevalence of comorbidities, had longer hospital stay, higher ICU admission rates, increased requirement for mechanical ventilation and higher in-hospital mortality compared to other races/ethnicities. Gastrointestinal symptoms (GI), particularly diarrhea, were more common among minority patients. Among GI symptoms and laboratory findings, abdominal pain (5.3%, p=0.03), elevated AST (n=2653, 50.2%, p=\u3c0.001, OR=2.18), bilirubin (n=577, 12.9%, p=0.01) and low albumin levels (n=361, 19.1%, p=0.03) were associated with mortality. Multivariate analysis (adjusted for age, sex, race, geographic location) indicates that patients with asthma, COPD, cardiac disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, immunocompromised status, shortness of breath and cough possess higher odds of in-hospital mortality. Among laboratory parameters, patients with lymphocytopenia (OR2=2.50), lymphocytosis (OR2=1.41), and elevations of serum CRP (OR2=4.19), CPK (OR2=1.43), LDH (OR2=2.10), troponin (OR2=2.91), ferritin (OR2=1.88), AST (OR2=2.18), D-dimer (OR2=2.75) are more prone to death. Patients on glucocorticoids (OR2=1.49) and mechanical ventilation (OR2=9.78) have higher in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that older age, male sex, AA race, and hospitalization in New York were associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates from COVID-19 in early pandemic stages. Other predictors of mortality included the presence of comorbidities, shortness of breath, cough elevated serum inflammatory markers, altered lymphocyte count, elevated AST, and low serum albumin. AA patients comprised a disproportionate share of COVID-19 death in the US during 2020 relative to other races/ethnicities

Symptomatic, clinical and biomarker associations for mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients enriched for African Americans

Abstract Background and Aims Initial reports on US COVID-19 showed different outcomes in different races. In this study we use a diverse large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients to determine predictors of mortality. Methods We analyzed data from hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 5852) between March 2020- August 2020 from 8 hospitals across the US. Demographics, comorbidities, symptoms and laboratory data were collected. Results The cohort contained 3,662 (61.7%) African Americans (AA), 286 (5%) American Latinx (LAT), 1,407 (23.9%), European Americans (EA), and 93 (1.5%) American Asians (AS). Survivors and non-survivors mean ages in years were 58 and 68 for AA, 58 and 77 for EA, 44 and 61 for LAT, and 51 and 63 for AS. Mortality rates for AA, LAT, EA and AS were 14.8, 7.3, 16.3 and 2.2%. Mortality increased among patients with the following characteristics: age, male gender, New York region, cardiac disease, COPD, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, history of cancer, immunosuppression, elevated lymphocytes, CRP, ferritin, D-Dimer, creatinine, troponin, and procalcitonin. Use of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.001), shortness of breath (SOB) (p < 0.01), fatigue (p = 0.04), diarrhea (p = 0.02), and increased AST (p < 0.01), significantly correlated with death in multivariate analysis. Male sex and EA and AA race/ethnicity had higher frequency of death. Diarrhea was among the most common GI symptom amongst AAs (6.8%). When adjusting for comorbidities, significant variables among the demographics of study population were age (over 45 years old), male sex, EA, and patients hospitalized in New York. When adjusting for disease severity, significant variables were age over 65 years old, male sex, EA as well as having SOB, elevated CRP and D-dimer. Glucocorticoid usage was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death in our cohort. Conclusion Among this large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients enriched for African Americans, our study findings may reflect the extent of systemic organ involvement by SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent progression to multi-system organ failure. High mortality in AA in comparison with LAT is likely related to high frequency of comorbidities and older age among AA. Glucocorticoids should be used carefully considering the poor outcomes associated with it. Special focus in treating patients with elevated liver enzymes and other inflammatory biomarkers such as CRP, troponin, ferritin, procalcitonin, and D-dimer are required to prevent poor outcomes.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173459/1/12879_2022_Article_7520.pd

Correction: Symptomatic, clinical and biomarker associations for mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients enriched for African Americans

Correction to: BMC Infectious Diseases (2022) 22:552 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07520-

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING None

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study

Background End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. Methods In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. Findings Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14middot6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p&lt;0middot001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11middot8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80middot9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44middot1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36middot4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52middot8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45middot7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5middot8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13middot0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0middot5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5middot1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3middot7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4middot3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8middot5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65middot4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28middot0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22middot5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. Interpretation Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. Funding None. Copyright (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health