Factors Associated With Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the US

Importance: The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. Objectives: To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. Exposures: Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. Results: A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (≥80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (≥40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (Pao2:Fio2<100 vs ≥300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30–5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46–4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs ≥100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.Dr. Gupta reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is a scientific coordinator for GlaxoSmithKline’s ASCEND (Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat) trial. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Mathews reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) during the conduct of the study and serves on the steering committee for the BREATHE trial (Breathing Retraining for Asthma–Trial of Home Exercises), funded by Roivant/Kinevant Sciences. Dr. Melamed reported receiving honoraria from the American Board of Internal Medicine and Icon Medical Consulting. Dr. Reiser reported receiving personal fees from Biomarin, TRISAQ, Thermo BCT, Astellas, Massachusetts General Hospital, Genentech, UptoDate, Merck, Inceptionsci, GLG, and Clearview and grants from the NIH and Nephcure outside the submitted work. Dr. Srivastava reported receiving personal fees from Horizon Pharma PLC, AstraZeneca, and CVS Caremark outside the submitted work. Dr. Vijayan reported receiving personal fees from NxStage, Boeringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Velez reported receiving personal fees from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Shaefi reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Institute on Aging and NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Admon reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study. Dr. Donnelly reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the American College of Emergency Physicians/Annals of Emergency Medicine outside the submitted work. Dr. Hernán reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Semler reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported

Association Between Early Treatment With Tocilizumab and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

Importance: Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. Objective: To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Exposures: Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. Results: Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab–treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.The writing committee was supported by grants F32HL149337 (Dr. Admon), K23DK120811 (Dr. Srivastava), R01HL085757 (Dr. Parikh), R01HL144566 and R01DK125786 (Dr. Leaf), K12HL138039 (Dr. Donnelly), K23HL130648 (Dr. Mathews), R37AI102634 (Dr. Hernán), F32DC017342 (Dr. Gupta), K08GM134220 and R03AG060179 (Dr. Shaefi), K23HL143053 (Dr. Semler), and R01HL153384 (Dr. Hayek) from the NIH and grant U-M G024231 from the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor (Dr. Hayek)

Thrombosis, Bleeding, and the Observational Effect of Early Therapeutic Anticoagulation on Survival in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Background: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. Design: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. Setting: 67 hospitals in the United States. Participants: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. Measurements: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. Results: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). Limitation: Observational design. Conclusion: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation

Pretreatment neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio is superior to platelet/lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of long-term mortality in breast cancer patients.

The aim of our study was to assess the predictive value of platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in terms of survival in breast cancer patients. This is an observational study of 437 breast cancer patients treated between January 2004 and December 2006. Survival status was obtained from our cancer registry and Social Security Death Index. Survival analysis, stratified by NLR and PLR quartiles, was used to evaluate their prognostic values. Patients in the highest 4th PLR and NLR quartiles had higher 5-year mortality rate (30.4 and 40.3 %) compared to those in the lower three PLR and NLR quartiles (12.1 and 8.2 %), p \u3c 0.0001. Multivariate hazard ratios of 4th PLR and NLR quartiles compared to first PLR and NLR quartiles were 3.68 (1.74-7.77, p = 0.001) and 3.67 (1.52-8.86, p = 0.004). Higher PLR only showed a trend of higher mortality in patients with normal lymphocyte count, whereas NLR continued to be statistically significant predictor of 5-year mortality in all lymphocyte count subsets. Pretreatment NLR is an independent predictor of long-term mortality in breast cancer patients, whereas pretreatment PLR was not superior to absolute lymphocyte count alone in predicting long-term mortality

Sarcoid-Like Granulomatous Disease: Pathologic Case Series in World Trade Center Dust Exposed Rescue and Recovery Workers

Sarcoid-like granulomatous diseases (SGD) have been previously identified in cohorts of World Trade Center (WTC) dust-exposed individuals. In the present studies, we analyzed lung and/or lymph node biopsies from patients referred to our clinic with suspected WTC dust-induced lung disease to evaluate potential pathophysiologic mechanisms. Histologic sections of lung and/or lymph node samples were analyzed for markers of injury, oxidative stress, inflammation, fibrosis, and epigenetic modifications. Out of seven patients examined, we diagnosed four with SGD and two with pulmonary fibrosis; one was diagnosed later with SGD at another medical facility. Patients with SGD were predominantly white, obese men, who were less than 50 years old and never smoked. Cytochrome b5, cytokeratin 17, heme oxygenase-1, lipocalin-2, inducible nitric oxide synthase, cyclooxygenase 2, tumor necrosis factor &alpha;, ADP-ribosylation factor-like GTPase 11, mannose receptor-1, galectin-3, transforming growth factor &beta;, histone-3 and methylated histone-3 were identified in lung and lymph nodes at varying levels in all samples examined. Three of the biopsy samples with granulomas displayed peri-granulomatous fibrosis. These findings are important and suggest the potential of WTC dust-induced fibrotic sarcoid. It is likely that patient demographics and/or genetic factors influence the response to WTC dust injury and that these contribute to different pathological outcomes

Machine Learning Prediction of Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have variable mortality. Risk scores could improve care and be used for prognostic enrichment in trials. We aimed to compare machine learning algorithms and develop a simple tool for predicting 28-day mortality in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: This was an observational study of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day inhospital mortality. Machine learning models and a simple tool were derived using variables from the first 48 hours of ICU admission and validated externally in independent sites and temporally with more recent admissions. Models were compared with a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration. SETTING: Sixty-eight U.S. ICUs. PATIENTS: Adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 ICUs in the United States between March 4, 2020, and June 29, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study included 5,075 patients, 1,846 (36.4%) of whom died by day 28. eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.81) and was well-calibrated, while k-nearest neighbors were the lowest performing machine learning algorithm (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.69). Findings were similar with temporal validation. The simple tool, which was created using the most important features from the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model, had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.78) than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69), National Early Warning Score (0.60), and CURB-65 (0.65; p &lt; 0.05 for all comparisons). Age, number of ICU beds, creatinine, lactate, arterial pH, and Pao2/Fio2 ratio were the most important predictors in the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model. CONCLUSIONS: eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest discrimination overall, and our simple tool had higher discrimination than a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 on external validation. These models could be used to improve triage decisions and clinical trial enrichment

Personal Interventions for Reducing Exposure and Risk for Outdoor Air Pollution: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Poor air quality affects the health and wellbeing of large populations around the globe. Although source controls are the most effective approaches for improving air quality and reducing health risks, individuals can also take actions to reduce their personal exposure by staying indoors, reducing physical activity, altering modes of transportation, filtering indoor air, and using respirators and other types of face masks. A synthesis of available evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects or unintended consequences of personal interventions for air pollution is needed by clinicians to assist patients and the public in making informed decisions about use of these interventions. To address this need, the American Thoracic Society convened a workshop in May of 2018 to bring together a multidisciplinary group of international experts to review the current state of knowledge about personal interventions for air pollution and important considerations when helping patients and the general public to make decisions about how best to protect themselves. From these discussions, recommendations were made regarding when, where, how, and for whom to consider personal interventions. In addition to the efficacy and safety of the various interventions, the committee considered evidence regarding the identification of patients at greatest risk, the reliability of air quality indices, the communication challenges, and the ethical and equity considerations that arise when discussing personal interventions to reduce exposure and risk from outdoor air pollution

Personal Interventions for Reducing Exposure and Risk for Outdoor Air Pollution: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Poor air quality affects the health and wellbeing of large populations around the globe. Although source controls are the most effective approaches for improving air quality and reducing health risks, individuals can also take actions to reduce their personal exposure by staying indoors, reducing physical activity, altering modes of transportation, filtering indoor air, and using respirators and other types of face masks. A synthesis of available evidence on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects or unintended consequences of personal interventions for air pollution is needed by clinicians to assist patients and the public in making informed decisions about use of these interventions. To address this need, the American Thoracic Society convened a workshop in May of 2018 to bring together a multidisciplinary group of international experts to review the current state of knowledge about personal interventions for air pollution and important considerations when helping patients and the general public to make decisions about how best to protect themselves. From these discussions, recommendations were made regarding when, where, how, and for whom to consider personal interventions. In addition to the efficacy and safety of the various interventions, the committee considered evidence regarding the identification of patients at greatest risk, the reliability of air quality indices, the communication challenges, and the ethical and equity considerations that arise when discussing personal interventions to reduce exposure and risk from outdoor air pollution