Unfractionated and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and the Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors, IBMX and Cilostazol, Block Ex Vivo Equid Herpesvirus Type-1-Induced Platelet Activation

Equid herpes virus type-1 (EHV-1) is a major pathogen of horses, causing abortion storms and outbreaks of herpes virus myeloencephalopathy. These clinical syndromes are partly attributed to ischemic injury from thrombosis in placental and spinal vessels. The mechanism of thrombosis in affected horses is unknown. We have previously shown that EHV-1 activates platelets through virus-associated tissue factor-initiated thrombin generation. Activated platelets participate in thrombus formation by providing a surface to localize coagulation factor complexes that amplify and propagate thrombin generation. We hypothesized that coagulation inhibitors that suppress thrombin generation (heparins) or platelet inhibitors that impede post-receptor thrombin signaling (phosphodiesterase [PDE] antagonists) would inhibit EHV-1-induced platelet activation ex vivo. We exposed platelet-rich plasma collected from healthy horses to the RacL11 abortigenic and Ab4 neuropathogenic strains of EHV-1 at 1 plaque forming unit/cell in the presence or absence of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight (LMWH) heparin or the PDE inhibitors, 3-isobutyl-1methylxanthine (IBMX) and cilostazol. We assessed platelet activation status in flow cytometric assays by measuring P-selectin expression. We found that all of the inhibitors blocked EHV-1- and thrombin-induced platelet activation in a dose-dependent manner. Platelet activation in PRP was maximally inhibited at concentrations of 0.05 U/mL UFH and 2.5 μg/mL LMWH. These concentrations represented 0.1 to 0.2 U/mL anti-Factor Xa activity measured in chromogenic assays. Both IBMX and cilostazol showed maximal inhibition of platelet activation at the highest tested concentration of 50 μM but inhibition was lower than that seen with UFH and LMWH. Our results indicate that heparin anticoagulants and strong non-selective (IBMX) or isoenzyme-3 selective (cilostazol) PDE antagonists inhibit ex vivo EHV-1-induced platelet activation. These drugs have potential as adjunctive therapy to reduce the serious complications associated with EHV-1-induced thrombosis. Treatment trials are warranted to determine whether these drugs yield clinical benefit when administered to horses infected with EHV-1

Effects of intravenous administration of peripheral blood‐derived mesenchymal stromal cells after infusion of lipopolysaccharide in horses

Abstract Background A systemic and dysregulated immune response to infection contributes to morbidity and mortality associated with sepsis. Peripheral blood‐derived mesenchymal stromal cells (PB‐MSC) mitigate inflammation in animal models of sepsis. Allogeneic PB‐MSC administered IV to horses is well‐tolerated but therapeutic benefits are unknown. Hypothesis After IV lipopolysaccharide (LPS) infusion, horses treated with PB‐MSC would have less severe clinical signs, clinicopathological abnormalities, inflammatory cytokine gene expression, and oxidative stress compared to controls administered a placebo. Animals Sixteen horses were included in this study. Methods A randomized placebo‐controlled experimental trial was performed. Sixteen healthy horses were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups (1 × 109 PB‐MSC or saline placebo). Treatments were administered 30 minutes after completion of LPS infusion of approximately 30 ng/kg. Clinical signs, clinicopathological variables, inflammatory cytokine gene expression, and oxidative stress markers were assessed at various time points over a 24‐hour period. Results A predictable response to IV LPS infusion was observed in all horses. At the dose administered, there was no significant effect of PB‐MSC on clinical signs, clinicopathological variables, or inflammatory cytokine gene expression at any time point. Antioxidant potential was not different between treatment groups, but intracellular ROS increased over time in the placebo group. Other variables that changed over time were likely due to effects of IV LPS infusion. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Administration of allogeneic PB‐MSC did not cause clinically detectable adverse effects in healthy horses. The dose of PB‐MSC used here is unlikely to exert a beneficial effect in endotoxemic horses

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p<0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p<0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

At-admission prediction of mortality and pulmonary embolism in an international cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 using statistical and machine learning methods

By September 2022, more than 600 million cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported globally, resulting in over 6.5 million deaths. COVID-19 mortality risk estimators are often, however, developed with small unrepresentative samples and with methodological limitations. It is highly important to develop predictive tools for pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients as one of the most severe preventable complications of COVID-19. Early recognition can help provide life-saving targeted anti-coagulation therapy right at admission. Using a dataset of more than 800,000 COVID-19 patients from an international cohort, we propose a cost-sensitive gradient-boosted machine learning model that predicts occurrence of PE and death at admission. Logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards models, and Shapley values were used to identify key predictors for PE and death. Our prediction model had a test AUROC of 75.9% and 74.2%, and sensitivities of 67.5% and 72.7% for PE and all-cause mortality respectively on a highly diverse and held-out test set. The PE prediction model was also evaluated on patients in UK and Spain separately with test results of 74.5% AUROC, 63.5% sensitivity and 78.9% AUROC, 95.7% sensitivity. Age, sex, region of admission, comorbidities (chronic cardiac and pulmonary disease, dementia, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, obesity, smoking), and symptoms (any, confusion, chest pain, fatigue, headache, fever, muscle or joint pain, shortness of breath) were the most important clinical predictors at admission. Age, overall presence of symptoms, shortness of breath, and hypertension were found to be key predictors for PE using our extreme gradient boosted model. This analysis based on the, until now, largest global dataset for this set of problems can inform hospital prioritisation policy and guide long term clinical research and decision-making for COVID-19 patients globally. Our machine learning model developed from an international cohort can serve to better regulate hospital risk prioritisation of at-risk patients

Characteristics and outcomes of an international cohort of 600 000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background: We describe demographic features, treatments and clinical outcomes in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 cohort, one of the world's largest international, standardized data sets concerning hospitalized patients. Methods: The data set analysed includes COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 2020 and January 2022 in 52 countries. We investigated how symptoms on admission, co-morbidities, risk factors and treatments varied by age, sex and other characteristics. We used Cox regression models to investigate associations between demographics, symptoms, co-morbidities and other factors with risk of death, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Results: Data were available for 689 572 patients with laboratory-confirmed (91.1%) or clinically diagnosed (8.9%) SARS-CoV-2 infection from 52 countries. Age [adjusted hazard ratio per 10 years 1.49 (95% CI 1.48, 1.49)] and male sex [1.23 (1.21, 1.24)] were associated with a higher risk of death. Rates of admission to an ICU and use of IMV increased with age up to age 60 years then dropped. Symptoms, co-morbidities and treatments varied by age and had varied associations with clinical outcomes. The case-fatality ratio varied by country partly due to differences in the clinical characteristics of recruited patients and was on average 21.5%. Conclusions: Age was the strongest determinant of risk of death, with a ∼30-fold difference between the oldest and youngest groups; each of the co-morbidities included was associated with up to an almost 2-fold increase in risk. Smoking and obesity were also associated with a higher risk of death. The size of our international database and the standardized data collection method make this study a comprehensive international description of COVID-19 clinical features. Our findings may inform strategies that involve prioritization of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have a higher risk of death

Implementation of Recommendations on the Use of Corticosteroids in Severe COVID-19

Importance: Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives: To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, setting, and participants: This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure: Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main outcomes and measures: Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results: Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation