Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a heterogenous syndrome with many etiologies for which there are no definitive pharmacologic treatments, despite decades of research. We explore some adjunctive pharmacologic therapies, including neuromuscular blockade, corticosteroids, and inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. Additionally, we explore some investigative therapies, including Vitamin C, beta-agonists, statins, mesenchymal stromal cells, and granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor. We do discuss the potential role of steroids in acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as a trigger. The standard of care, however, remains supportive care.

Objectives

Adequate assessment of fluid responsiveness in shock necessitates correct interpretation of hemodynamic changes induced by preload challenge. This study evaluates the accuracy of point-of-care Doppler ultrasound assessment of the change in carotid corrected flow time induced by a passive leg raise maneuver as a predictor of fluid responsiveness. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM, Cheetah Medical, Newton Center, MA) system based on a bioreactance method was used.

Design

Prospective, noninterventional study.

Setting

ICU at a large academic center.

Patients

Patients with new, undifferentiated shock, and vasopressor requirements despite fluid resuscitation were included. Patients with significant cardiac disease and conditions that precluded adequate passive leg raising were excluded.

Interventions

Carotid corrected flow time was measured via ultrasound before and after a passive leg raise maneuver. Predicted fluid responsiveness was defined as greater than 10% increase in stroke volume on noninvasive cardiac output monitoring following passive leg raise. Images and measurements were reanalyzed by a second, blinded physician. The accuracy of change in carotid corrected flow time to predict fluid responsiveness was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Measurements and main results

Seventy-seven subjects were enrolled with 54 (70.1%) classified as fluid responders by noninvasive cardiac output monitoring. The average change in carotid corrected flow time after passive leg raise for fluid responders was 14.1 ± 18.7 ms versus -4.0 ± 8 ms for nonresponders (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that change in carotid corrected flow time is an accurate predictor of fluid responsiveness status (area under the curve, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and a 7 ms increase in carotid corrected flow time post passive leg raise was shown to have a 97% positive predictive value and 82% accuracy in detecting fluid responsiveness using noninvasive cardiac output monitoring as a reference standard. Mechanical ventilation, respiratory rate, and high positive end-expiratory pressure had no significant impact on test performance. Post hoc blinded evaluation of bedside acquired measurements demonstrated agreement between evaluators.

Conclusions

Change in carotid corrected flow time can predict fluid responsiveness status after a passive leg raise maneuver. Using point-of-care ultrasound to assess change in carotid corrected flow time is an acceptable and reproducible method for noninvasive identification of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock.

Background

Understanding the long-term sequelae of severe COVID-19 remains limited, particularly in the United States.

Objective

To examine long-term outcomes of patients who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission for severe COVID-19.

Design, patients, and main measures

This is a prospective cohort study of patients who had severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission in a two-hospital academic health system in Southern California. Patients discharged alive between 3/21/2020 and 12/31/2020 were surveyed approximately 6 months after discharge to assess health-related quality of life using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v2.1, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and loneliness scales. A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) was estimated using 7 PROMIS domain scores. Patients were also asked their attitude about receiving aggressive ICU care.

Key results

Of 275 patients admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19, 205 (74.5%) were discharged alive and 132 (64%, median age 59, 46% female) completed surveys a median of 182 days post-discharge. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, ability to participate in social activities, pain interference, and cognitive function were not significantly different from the U.S. general population, but physical function (44.2, SD 11.0) was worse. PROPr mean score of 0.46 (SD 0.30, range -0.02 to 0.96 [<0 is worse than dead and 1 represents perfect health]) was slightly lower than the U.S. general population, with an even distribution across the continuum. Poor PROPr was associated with chronic medical conditions and receipt of life-sustaining treatments, but not demographics or social vulnerability. PTSD was suspected in 20% and loneliness in 29% of patients. Ninety-eight percent of patients were glad they received life-saving treatment.

Conclusion

Most patients who survive severe COVID-19 achieve positive outcomes, with health scores similar to the general population at 6 months post-discharge. However, there is marked heterogeneity in outcomes with a substantial minority reporting severely compromised health.

Purpose

To describe the trajectory of respiratory failure in COVID-19 and explore factors associated with risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

Materials and methods

A retrospective, observational cohort study of 112 inpatient adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 12 and April 16, 2020. Data were manually extracted from electronic medical records. Multivariable and Univariable regression were used to evaluate association between baseline characteristics, initial serum markers and the outcome of IMV.

Results

Our cohort had median age of 61 (IQR 45-74) and was 66% male. In-hospital mortality was 6% (7/112). ICU mortality was 12.8% (6/47), and 18% (5/28) for those requiring IMV. Obesity (OR 5.82, CI 1.74-19.48), former (OR 8.06, CI 1.51-43.06) and current smoking status (OR 10.33, CI 1.43-74.67) were associated with IMV after adjusting for age, sex, and high prevalence comorbidities by multivariable analysis. Initial absolute lymphocyte count (OR 0.33, CI 0.11-0.96), procalcitonin (OR 1.27, CI 1.02-1.57), IL-6 (OR 1.17, CI 1.03-1.33), ferritin (OR 1.05, CI 1.005-1.11), LDH (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.17) and CRP (OR 1.13, CI 1.06-1.21), were associated with IMV by univariate analysis.

Conclusions

Obesity, smoking history, and elevated inflammatory markers were associated with increased need for IMV in patients with COVID-19.

Background

Because of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

Methods

Observational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March-June and October-December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data.

Results

Among 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n = 434); 90% October-December (n = 213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March-June and October-December.

Conclusions

Most adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the continued urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes.

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

Methods

Case-control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states 11 March-15 December 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose 2) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines.

Results

A total of 10 078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-91) versus 82% (95% CI, 79-85) at ≥180 days (P < .001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, P < .001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, P < .001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) (91% to 87%, P = .005), and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, P < .001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed.

Conclusions

In a period largely predating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of 2 mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.

Background

Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls.

Methods

Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group.

Results

5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls.

Conclusions

Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Background

As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.

Methods

In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Results

Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8).

Conclusion

During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.