Patterns of use of adjunctive therapies in patients with early moderate- severe Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome: Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

Background: Adjunctive strategies are an important part of the management of ARDS. However, their application in clinical practice remains inconsistent. Research Question: We wished to determine the frequency and patterns of use of adjunctive strategies in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FIO2 [P/F ratio] < 150) enrolled into the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Study Design and Methods: The LUNG SAFE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted in 2014 in 459 ICUs from 50 countries. The primary objective of this substudy was to determine the frequency of use of widely available (neuromuscular blockade, prone position) adjuncts vs adjuncts requiring specialized equipment (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, inhaled vasodilators, high-frequency ventilation) in patients in the first 48 h of moderate to severe ARDS (P/F ratio < 150). Results: Of 1,146 patients on invasive ventilation with moderate to severe ARDS, 811 patients (71%) received no adjunct within 48 h of ARDS onset. Of 335 (29%) that received adjunctive strategies, 252 (75%) received a single strategy, and 83 (25%) receiving more than one adjunct. Of ARDS nonsurvivors, 67% did not receive any adjunctive strategy in the first 48 h. Most patients (67%) receiving specialized adjuncts did not receive prone positioning or neuromuscular blockade. Patients that received adjuncts were more likely to have their ARDS recognized, be younger and sicker, have pneumonia, be more difficult to ventilate, and be in a European high-income country than those that did not receive adjuncts. Interpretation: Three in 10 patients with moderate to severe ARDS, and only one-third of nonsurvivors, received adjunctive strategies over the first 48 h of ARDS. A more consistent and evidence-driven approach to adjunct use may reduce costs and improve outcomes in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02010073; URL: www.clinicaltrials.go

Death in hospital following ICU discharge: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

To determine the frequency of, and factors associated with, death in hospital following ICU discharge to the ward. The Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted across 459 ICUs from 50 countries globally. This study aimed to understand the frequency and factors associated with death in hospital in patients who survived their ICU stay. We examined outcomes in the subpopulation discharged with no limitations of life sustaining treatments ('treatment limitations'), and the subpopulations with treatment limitations. 2186 (94%) patients with no treatment limitations discharged from ICU survived, while 142 (6%) died in hospital. 118 (61%) of patients with treatment limitations survived while 77 (39%) patients died in hospital. Patients without treatment limitations that died in hospital after ICU discharge were older, more likely to have COPD, immunocompromise or chronic renal failure, less likely to have trauma as a risk factor for ARDS. Patients that died post ICU discharge were less likely to receive neuromuscular blockade, or to receive any adjunctive measure, and had a higher pre- ICU discharge non-pulmonary SOFA score. A similar pattern was seen in patients with treatment limitations that died in hospital following ICU discharge. A significant proportion of patients die in hospital following discharge from ICU, with higher mortality in patients with limitations of life-sustaining treatments in place. Non-survivors had higher systemic illness severity scores at ICU discharge than survivors. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073

A new multiplex SARS-CoV-2 antigen microarray showed correlation of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies from patients with COVID-19 disease severity and maintenance of relative IgA and IgM antigen binding over time

Zoonotic spillover of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to humans in December 2019 caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Serological monitoring is critical for detailed understanding of individual immune responses to infection and protection to guide clinical therapeutic and vaccine strategies. We developed a high throughput multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 antigen microarray incorporating spike (S) and nucleocapsid protein (NP) and fragments expressed in various hosts which allowed simultaneous assessment of serum IgG, IgA, and IgM responses. Antigen glycosylation influenced antibody binding, with S glycosylation generally increasing and NP glycosylation decreasing binding. Purified antibody isotypes demonstrated a binding pattern and intensity different from the same isotype in whole serum, probably due to competition from the other isotypes present. Using purified antibody isotypes from naïve Irish COVID-19 patients, we correlated antibody isotype binding to different panels of antigens with disease severity, with binding to the S region S1 expressed in insect cells (S1 Sf21) significant for IgG, IgA, and IgM. Assessing longitudinal response for constant concentrations of purified antibody isotypes for a patient subset demonstrated that the relative proportion of antigen-specific IgGs decreased over time for severe disease, but the relative proportion of antigen-specific IgA binding remained at the same magnitude at 5 and 9 months post-first symptom onset. Further, the relative proportion of IgM binding decreased for S antigens but remained the same for NP antigens. This may support antigen-specific serum IgA and IgM playing a role in maintaining longer-term protection, important for developing and assessing vaccine strategies. Overall, these data demonstrate the multiplexed platform as a sensitive and useful platform for expanded humoral immunity studies, allowing detailed elucidation of antibody isotypes response against multiple antigens. This approach will be useful for monoclonal antibody therapeutic studies and screening of donor polyclonal antibodies for patient infusions

Improved diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 by using nucleoprotein and spike protein fragment 2 in quantitative dual ELISA tests

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the causative agent of the 2020 worldwide coronavirus pandemic. Antibody testing is useful for diagnosing historic infections of a disease in a population. These tests are also a helpful epidemiological tool for predicting how the virus spreads in a community, relating antibody levels to immunity and for assessing herd immunity. In the present study, SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins were recombinantly produced and used to analyse serum from individuals previously exposed, or not, to SARS-CoV-2. The nucleocapsid (Npro) and spike subunit 2 (S2Frag) proteins were identified as highly immunogenic, although responses to the former were generally greater. These two proteins were used to develop two quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) that when used in combination resulted in a highly reliable diagnostic test. Npro and S2Frag-ELISAs could detect at least 10% more true positive coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases than the commercially available ARCHITECT test (Abbott). Moreover, our quantitative ELISAs also show that specific antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 proteins tend to wane rapidly even in patients who had developed severe disease. As antibody tests complement COVID-19 diagnosis and determine population-level surveillance during this pandemic, the alternative diagnostic we present in this study could play a role in controlling the spread of the virus

Personalized mechanical ventilation guided by ultrasound in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (PEGASUS): study protocol for an international randomized clinical trial

background acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a frequent cause of hypoxemic respiratory failure with a mortality rate of approximately 30%. Identifying ARDS subphenotypes based on "focal" or "non-focal" lung morphology has the potential to better target mechanical ventilation strategies of individual patients. however, classifying morphology through chest radiography or computed tomography is either inaccurate or impractical. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a non-invasive bedside tool that can accurately distinguish "focal" from "non-focal" lung morphology. We hypothesize that LUS-guided personalized mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients leads to a reduction in 90-day mortality compared to conventional mechanical ventilation. methods the personalized mechanical ventilation guided by ultrasound in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (PEGASUS) study is an investigator-initiated, international, randomized clinical trial (RCT) that plans to enroll 538 invasively ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with moderate to severe ARDS. eligible patients will receive a LUS exam to classify lung morphology as "focal" or "non-focal". thereafter, patients will be randomized within 12 h after ARDS diagnosis to receive standard care or personalized ventilation where the ventilation strategy is adjusted to the morphology subphenotype, i.e., higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers for "non-focal" ARDS and lower PEEP and prone positioning for "focal" ARDS. the primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at day 90. secondary outcomes are mortality at day 28, ventilator-free days at day 28, ICU length of stay, ICU mortality, hospital length of stay, hospital mortality, and number of complications (ventilator-associated pneumonia, pneumothorax, and need for rescue therapy). after a pilot phase of 80 patients, the correct interpretation of LUS images and correct application of the intervention within the safe limits of mechanical ventilation will be evaluated. discussion PEGASUS is the first RCT that compares LUS-guided personalized mechanical ventilation with conventional ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with moderate and severe ARDS. If this study demonstrates that personalized ventilation guided by LUS can improve the outcomes of ARDS patients, it has the potential to shift the existing one-size-fits-all ventilation strategy towards a more individualized approach. trial registration the PEGASUS trial was registered before the inclusion of the first patient, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (ID: NCT05492344)

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570