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)

Preventing a nonexistent entity: the curious case of contrast and acute kidney injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In recent years, doubt has been cast on the existence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The skepticism has stemmed from observational studies from large administrative healthcare databases. Although they correctly call that contrast-induced acute kidney injury is less common than previously thought, they cannot completely exclude selection bias. RECENT FINDINGS: Though less common than previously thought, contrast-induced acute kidney injury still exists. The only prophylactic method that remains valid is that of isotonic volume expansion, which is still deemed beneficial in high-risk patients. N-acetylcysteine and sodium bicarbonate are ineffective and their use should be abandoned. SUMMARY: Contrast-induced kidney injury should be defined based on clinical grounds, not merely on biochemical numbers. More research to validate a clinical definition is necessary in order to accurately re-examine its incidence

Review - current opinion in cardiology hypertension in chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular events, and progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The kidneys play a causative role in hypertension, but they are also organs vulnerable to hypertensive injury. Thus far, goals for optimal blood pressure in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ESKD patients are not fully elucidated. Herein, we critically review the existing evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) continue to be deemed as the best source of evidence to guide optimal blood pressure goals in CKD and ESKD patients. Despite recent advances, the growing body of literature does not permit drawing definitive conclusions. Few adequately powered RCTs have specifically assessed goals for treatment of hypertension in patients with CKD. The most recent large RCT in hypertension, the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, included a subset of patients with CKD and provided some insights. For the ESKD population, trials to evaluate blood pressure goals are even more scarce. The Blood Pressure in Dialysis Trial was a relatively small pilot study that can be deemed as hypothesis generating. SUMMARY: Management of hypertension in CKD is essential for optimization of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and renal outcomes. To date, the existing evidence does not fully clarify ideal targets for blood pressure control in this patient population

COVAN is the new HIVAN: the re-emergence of collapsing glomerulopathy with COVID-19

Reports of collapsing glomerulopathy in patients of African ancestry and high-riskAPOL1genotype infected with SARS-CoV-2 have emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. This new entity, which we term COVID-19-associated nephropathy (COVAN), may particularly impact individuals in some regions of the world. Awareness of this potentially ominous complication of COVID-19 must be raised

Reappraising the spectrum of AKI and hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis

Hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS-1) is a specific type of acute kidney injury (AKI) that is largely considered a functional derangement that ultimately affects renal vasculature tone. This Review describes new insights that suggest that non-haemodynamic tubulo-toxic factors, such as endotoxins and bile acids, might mediate parenchymal renal injury in patients with cirrhosis, suggesting that concurrent mechanisms might contribute to the development of AKI in patients with cirrhosis.The occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with end-stage liver disease constitutes one of the most challenging clinical scenarios in in-hospital and critical care medicine. Hepatorenal syndrome type 1 (HRS-1), which is a specific type of AKI that occurs in the context of advanced cirrhosis and portal hypertension, is associated with particularly high mortality. The pathogenesis of HRS-1 is largely viewed as a functional derangement that ultimately affects renal vasculature tone. However, new insights suggest that non-haemodynamic tubulo-toxic factors, such as endotoxins and bile acids, might mediate parenchymal renal injury in patients with cirrhosis, suggesting that concurrent mechanisms, including those traditionally associated with HRS-1 and non-traditional factors, might contribute to the development of AKI in patients with cirrhosis. Moreover, histological evidence of morphological abnormalities in the kidneys of patients with cirrhosis and renal dysfunction has prompted the functional nature of HRS-1 to be re-examined. From a clinical perspective, a diagnosis of HRS-1 guides utilization of vasoconstrictive therapy and decisions regarding renal replacement therapy. Patients with cirrhosis are at risk of AKI owing to a wide range of factors. However, the tools currently available to ascertain the diagnosis of HRS-1 and guide therapy are suboptimal. Short of liver transplantation, goal-directed haemodynamically targeted pharmacotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for this condition; improved understanding of the underlying pathogenic mechanisms might lead to better clinical outcomes. Here, we examine our current understanding of the pathophysiology of HRS-1 and existing challenges in its diagnosis and treatment

Author Correction: COVAN is the new HIVAN: the re-emergence of collapsing glomerulopathy with COVID-19 (Nature Reviews Nephrology, (2020), 10.1038/s41581-020-0332-3)

In the version of this article that was originally published online, there was a typographical error in the first name of the last author. This error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the manuscript

Author Correction: Reappraising the spectrum of AKI and hepatorenal syndrome in patients with cirrhosis (Nature Reviews Nephrology, (2019), 10.1038/s41581-019-0218-4)

In Table 2 of the original article published online, the response rates achieved with terlipressin and noradrenaline as described by reference 197 were incorrectly stated to be 70% and 83%, whereas they should have been 83% and 70%. In addition, a footnote has now been added to Table 2 to indicate studies that included patients with HRS-2. Finally, the overall reversal rates achieved with terlipressin based on studies outside the USA, which were described in the original article to range from ~40–70%, have been corrected to ~40–80%. These corrections have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the manuscript