The association of asthma and metabolic dysfunction with outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There have been conflicting results on the association of asthma with the severity of COVID-19. Poor metabolic health has been previously associated with both severe COVID-19 and inflammation in asthma. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between asthma and COVID-19 outcomes and if these associations are modified by metabolic syndrome. METHODS: We performed an international, observational cohort study of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: The study included 27,660 patients from 164 hospitals, 12,114 (44%) female, with a median (IQR) age of 63 years (51-75). After adjusting for age, sex, smoking, race, ethnicity, geographic region and Elixhauser comorbidity index, patients with asthma were not at greater risk of hospital death when compared to patients with no chronic pulmonary disease (controls) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.97 [95%CI 0.90-1.04], p=0.40). Patients with asthma, when compared to controls required higher respiratory support identified by the need for supplemental oxygen (aOR,1.07 [95%CI 1.01-1.14], p=0.02), high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) (aOR,1.06 [95%CI 1.00-1.13], p=0.04) and invasive MV (aOR,1.09 [95%CI 1.03-1.16], p=0.003). Metabolic syndrome increased the risk of death in asthma patients, but the magnitude of observed association was similar to controls in stratified analysis (interaction p value 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: In this international cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, asthma was not associated with mortality but was associated with increased need for respiratory support. Although metabolic dysfunction was associated with increased risks in COVID-19, these risks were similar for patients with or without asthma.

Variation in Sedative and Analgesic Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Providing analgesia and sedation is an essential component of caring for many mechanically ventilated patients. The selection of analgesic and sedative medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of these sedation practices on patient outcomes, remain incompletely characterized. RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the hospital patterns of analgesic and sedative use for patients with COVID-19 who received mechanical ventilation (MV), and what differences in clinical patient outcomes were observed across prevailing sedation practices? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of hospitalized adults who received MV for COVID-19 from February 2020 through April 2021 within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 Registry. To describe common sedation practices, we used hierarchical clustering to group hospitals based on the percentage of patients who received various analgesic and sedative medications. We then used multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between hospital analgesia and sedation cluster and duration of MV (with a placement of death [POD] approach to account for competing risks). RESULTS: We identified 1,313 adults across 35 hospitals admitted with COVID-19 who received MV. Two clusters of analgesia and sedation practices were identified. Cluster 1 hospitals generally administered opioids and propofol with occasional use of additional sedatives (eg, benzodiazepines, alpha-agonists, and ketamine); cluster 2 hospitals predominantly used opioids and benzodiazepines without other sedatives. As compared with patients in cluster 2, patients admitted to cluster 1 hospitals underwent a shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD (ß-estimate, -5.9; 95% CI, -11.2 to -0.6; P = .03). INTERPRETATION: Patients who received MV for COVID-19 in hospitals that prioritized opioids and propofol for analgesia and sedation experienced shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD as compared with patients who received MV in hospitals that primarily used opioids and benzodiazepines.

Validation of automated data abstraction for SCCM discovery VIRUS COVID-19 registry: practical EHR export pathways (VIRUS-PEEP).

Background: The gold standard for gathering data from electronic health records (EHR) has been manual data extraction; however, this requires vast resources and personnel. Automation of this process reduces resource burdens and expands research opportunities. Objective: This study aimed to determine the feasibility and reliability of automated data extraction in a large registry of adult COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods: This observational study included data from sites participating in the SCCM Discovery VIRUS COVID-19 registry. Important demographic, comorbidity, and outcome variables were chosen for manual and automated extraction for the feasibility dataset. We quantified the degree of agreement with Cohen's kappa statistics for categorical variables. The sensitivity and specificity were also assessed. Correlations for continuous variables were assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. The strength of agreement was defined as almost perfect (0.81-1.00), substantial (0.61-0.80), and moderate (0.41-0.60) based on kappa statistics. Pearson correlations were classified as trivial (0.00-0.30), low (0.30-0.50), moderate (0.50-0.70), high (0.70-0.90), and extremely high (0.90-1.00). Measurements and main results: The cohort included 652 patients from 11 sites. The agreement between manual and automated extraction for categorical variables was almost perfect in 13 (72.2%) variables (Race, Ethnicity, Sex, Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension, Congestive Heart Failure, Asthma, Diabetes Mellitus, ICU admission rate, IMV rate, HFNC rate, ICU and Hospital Discharge Status), and substantial in five (27.8%) (COPD, CKD, Dyslipidemia/Hyperlipidemia, NIMV, and ECMO rate). The correlations were extremely high in three (42.9%) variables (age, weight, and hospital LOS) and high in four (57.1%) of the continuous variables (Height, Days to ICU admission, ICU LOS, and IMV days). The average sensitivity and specificity for the categorical data were 90.7 and 96.9%. Conclusion and relevance: Our study confirms the feasibility and validity of an automated process to gather data from the EHR.

Facilitators and Barriers to Interacting With Clinical Decision Support in the ICU: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used in various aspects of healthcare to improve clinical decision-making, including in the ICU. However, there is growing evidence that CDSS are not used to their full potential, often resulting in alert fatigue which has been associated with patient harm. Clinicians in the ICU may be more vulnerable to desensitization of alerts than clinicians in less urgent parts of the hospital. We evaluated facilitators and barriers to appropriate CDSS interaction and provide methods to improve currently available CDSS in the ICU. DESIGN: Sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design, using the BEhavior and Acceptance fRamework. SETTING: International survey study. PATIENT/SUBJECTS: Clinicians (pharmacists, physicians) identified via survey, with recent experience with clinical decision support. INTERVENTIONS: An initial survey was developed to evaluate clinician perspectives on their interactions with CDSS. A subsequent in-depth interview was developed to further evaluate clinician (pharmacist, physician) beliefs and behaviors about CDSS. These interviews were then qualitatively analyzed to determine themes of facilitators and barriers with CDSS interactions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 48 respondents completed the initial survey (estimated response rate 15.5%). The majority believed that responding to CDSS alerts was part of their job (75%) but felt they experienced alert fatigue (56.5%). In the qualitative analysis, a total of five facilitators (patient safety, ease of response, specificity, prioritization, and feedback) and four barriers (excess quantity, work environment, difficulty in response, and irrelevance) were identified from the in-depth interviews. CONCLUSIONS: In this mixed-methods survey, we identified areas that institutions should focus on to improve appropriate clinician interactions with CDSS, specific to the ICU. Tailoring of CDSS to the ICU may lead to improvement in CDSS and subsequent improved patient safety outcomes.

Biomarker-Concordant Steroid Administration in Severe Coronavirus Disease-2019.

BACKGROUND: Although corticosteroids have become the standard of care for patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen, there is growing evidence of differential treatment response. This study aimed to evaluate if there was an association between biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: This registry-based cohort study included adult COVID-19 hospitalized patients between January 2020 and December 2021 from 109 institutions. Patients with available C-reactive protein (CRP) levels within 48 h of admission were evaluated. Those on steroids before admission, stayed in the hospital for <48 h, or were not on oxygen support were excluded. Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant if given with high baseline CRP ≥150 mg/L or withheld with low CRP (<150 mg/L) and vice-versa was considered discordant (low CRP with steroids, high CRP without steroids). Hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using varying CRP level thresholds. The model interaction was tested to determine steroid effectiveness with increasing CRP levels. RESULTS: Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant in 1778 (49%) patients and discordant in 1835 (51%). The concordant group consisted of higher-risk patients than the discordant group. After adjusting for covariates, the odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the concordant group than the discordant (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (C.I.)] = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]). Similarly, adjusted mortality difference was significant at the CRP thresholds of 100 and 200 mg/L (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.70 [0.52, 0.95] and 0.57 [0.38, 0.85], respectively), and concordant steroid use was associated with lower need for invasive ventilation for 200 mg/L threshold (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.52 [0.30, 0.91]). In contrast, no outcome benefit was observed at CRP threshold of 50. When the model interaction was tested, steroids were more effective at reducing mortality as CRP levels increased. CONCLUSION: Biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality in severe COVID-19.

Caring for Critically Ill Children With the ICU Liberation Bundle (ABCDEF): Results of the Pediatric Collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: Assess clinical outcomes following PICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle utilization. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study. SETTING: Eight academic PICUs. PATIENTS: Children greater than 2 months with expected PICU stay greater than 2 days and need for mechanical ventilation (MV). INTERVENTIONS: ABCDEF Bundle implementation. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Over an 11-month period (3-mo baseline, 8-mo implementation), Bundle utilization was measured for 622 patients totaling 5,017 PICU days. Risk of mortality was quantified for 532 patients (4,275 PICU days) for correlation between Bundle utilization and MV duration, PICU length of stay (LOS), delirium incidence, and mortality. Utilization was analyzed as subject-specific (entire PICU stay) and day-specific (single PICU day). Median overall subject-specific utilization increased from 50% during the 3-month baseline to 63.9% during the last four implementation months ( p < 0.001). Subject-specific utilization for elements A and C did not change; utilization improved for B (0-12.5%; p = 0.007), D (22.2-61.1%; p < 0.001), E (17.7-50%; p = 0.003), and F (50-79.2%; p = 0.001). We observed no association between Bundle utilization and MV duration, PICU LOS, or delirium incidence. In contrast, on adjusted analysis, every 10% increase in subject-specific utilization correlated with mortality odds ratio (OR) reduction of 34%, p < 0.001; every 10% increase in day-specific utilization correlated with a mortality OR reduction of 1.4% ( p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF Bundle is applicable to children. Although enhanced Bundle utilization correlated with decreased mortality, increased utilization did not correlate with duration of MV, PICU LOS, or delirium incidence. Additional research in the domains of comparative effectiveness, implementation science, and human factors engineering is required to understand this clinical inconsistency and optimize PICU Liberation concept integration into clinical practice.

Development and Validation of an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Prediction Model in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Updated Lung Injury Prediction Score.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an updated lung injury prediction score for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (c-LIPS) tailored for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a registry-based cohort study using the Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study. Hospitalized adult patients between January 2020 and January 2022 were screened. Patients who qualified for ARDS within the first day of admission were excluded. Development cohort consisted of patients enrolled from participating Mayo Clinic sites. The validation analyses were performed on remaining patients enrolled from more than 120 hospitals in 15 countries. The original lung injury prediction score (LIPS) was calculated and enhanced using reported COVID-19-specific laboratory risk factors, constituting c-LIPS. The main outcome was ARDS development and secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and progression in WHO ordinal scale. RESULTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 3710 patients, of whom 1041 (28.1%) developed ARDS. The c-LIPS discriminated COVID-19 patients who developed ARDS with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 compared with original LIPS (AUC, 0.74; P<.001) with good calibration accuracy (Hosmer-Lemeshow P=.50). Despite different characteristics of the two cohorts, the c-LIPS's performance was comparable in the validation cohort of 5426 patients (15.9% ARDS), with an AUC of 0.74; and its discriminatory performance was significantly higher than the LIPS (AUC, 0.68; P<.001). The c-LIPS's performance in predicting the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in derivation and validation cohorts had an AUC of 0.74 and 0.72, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this large patient sample c-LIPS was successfully tailored to predict ARDS in COVID-19 patients.

A multisite exploration of the association between critical care implementation factors and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods: We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates. Results: We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.

A Path to Real-World Evidence in Critical Care Using Open-Source Data Harmonization Tools.

COVID-19 highlighted the need for use of real-world data (RWD) in critical care as a near real-time resource for clinical, research, and policy efforts. Analysis of RWD is gaining momentum and can generate important evidence for policy makers and regulators. Extracting high quality RWD from electronic health records (EHRs) requires sophisticated infrastructure and dedicated resources. We sought to customize freely available public tools, supporting all phases of data harmonization, from data quality assessments to de-identification procedures, and generation of robust, data science ready RWD from EHRs. These data are made available to clinicians and researchers through CURE ID, a free platform which facilitates access to case reports of challenging clinical cases and repurposed treatments hosted by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences/National Institutes of Health in partnership with the Food and Drug Administration. This commentary describes the partnership, rationale, process, use case, impact in critical care, and future directions for this collaborative effort.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pediatric Oncology Patients: A Matched-Cohort Analysis of the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 Registry.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of multicenter data describing the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hospitalized pediatric oncology patients. Using a large, multicenter, Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study (VIRUS) database, we aimed at assessing outcomes of COVID-19 infection in this population. METHOD: This is a matched-cohort study involving children below 18 years of age hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021. Using the VIRUS; COVID-19 Registry database, children with oncologic diseases were compared with propensity score matched (age groups, sex, race, and ethnicity) cohort of children without oncologic diseases for the prevalence of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, interventions, hospital, and ICU length of stay. RESULTS: The number of children in the case and control groups was 45 and 180, respectively. ICU admission rate was similar in both groups ([47.7 vs 51.7%], P =0.63). The proportion of children requiring noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, and its duration were similar between groups, same as hospital mortality. Interestingly, MIS-C was significantly lower in the oncology group compared with the control (2.4 vs 24.6%; P =0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: In this study using a multicenter VIRUS database, ICU admission rate, interventions, and outcomes of COVID-19 were similar in children with the oncologic disease compared with control patients. The incidence of MIS-C is lower in oncologic patients.

Perceived Hospital Stress, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Activity, and Care Process Temporal Variance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened standard hospital operations. We sought to understand how this stress was perceived and manifested within individual hospitals and in relation to local viral activity. DESIGN: Prospective weekly hospital stress survey, November 2020-June 2022. SETTING: Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Thirteen hospitals across seven U.S. health systems. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 839 hospital-weeks of data over 85 pandemic weeks and five viral surges. Perceived overall hospital, ICU, and emergency department (ED) stress due to severe acute respiratory infection patients during the pandemic were reported by a mean of 43% ( sd , 36%), 32% (30%), and 14% (22%) of hospitals per week, respectively, and perceived care deviations in a mean of 36% (33%). Overall hospital stress was highly correlated with ICU stress (ρ = 0.82; p < 0.0001) but only moderately correlated with ED stress (ρ = 0.52; p < 0.0001). A county increase in 10 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cases per 100,000 residents was associated with an increase in the odds of overall hospital, ICU, and ED stress by 9% (95% CI, 5-12%), 7% (3-10%), and 4% (2-6%), respectively. During the Delta variant surge, overall hospital stress persisted for a median of 11.5 weeks (interquartile range, 9-14 wk) after local case peak. ICU stress had a similar pattern of resolution (median 11 wk [6-14 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.59) while the resolution of ED stress (median 6 wk [5-6 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.003) was earlier. There was a similar but attenuated pattern during the Omicron BA.1 subvariant surge. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived care deviations were common and potentially avoidable patient harm was rare. Perceived hospital stress persisted for weeks after surges peaked.

Angiopoietin-Like4 Is a Novel Marker of COVID-19 Severity.

Vascular dysfunction and capillary leak are common in critically ill COVID-19 patients, but identification of endothelial pathways involved in COVID-19 pathogenesis has been limited. Angiopoietin-like 4 (ANGPTL4) is a protein secreted in response to hypoxic and nutrient-poor conditions that has a variety of biological effects including vascular injury and capillary leak. OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of ANGPTL4 in COVID-19-related outcomes. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-five COVID-19 ICU patients were enrolled from April 2020 to May 2021 in a prospective, multicenter cohort study from three different medical centers, University of Washington, University of Southern California and New York University. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Plasma ANGPTL4 was measured on days 1, 7, and 14 after ICU admission. We used previously published tissue proteomic data and lung single nucleus RNA (snRNA) sequencing data from specimens collected from COVID-19 patients to determine the tissues and cells that produce ANGPTL4. RESULTS: Higher plasma ANGPTL4 concentrations were significantly associated with worse hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per log2 increase, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; p = 0.002). Higher ANGPTL4 concentrations were also associated with higher proportions of venous thromboembolism and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Longitudinal ANGPTL4 concentrations were significantly different during the first 2 weeks of hospitalization in patients who subsequently died compared with survivors (p for interaction = 8.1 × 10-5). Proteomics analysis demonstrated abundance of ANGPTL4 in lung tissue compared with other organs in COVID-19. ANGPTL4 single-nuclear RNA gene expression was significantly increased in pulmonary alveolar type 2 epithelial cells and fibroblasts in COVID-19 lung tissue compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ANGPTL4 is expressed in pulmonary epithelial cells and fibroblasts and is associated with clinical prognosis in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Variations in Administrative Approvals During the COVID-19 Pandemic at Participating Sites in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Network Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: COVID-19 Registry: A Cross-Sectional Study.

There is a paucity of literature regarding administrative approvals required for clinical studies during a pandemic. We aimed to evaluate variation in duration of administrative approvals within the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS): A Global COVID-19 Registry. DESIGN SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Survey analysis of 188 investigators who participated in the VIRUS: COVID-19 registry, a prospective, observational global registry database of 287 sites. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each study site approved through December 8, 2020, we assessed the duration in days: 1) from institutional review board (IRB) submission to IRB approval, 2) from IRB approval to Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) access, 3) from REDCap access to first patient data entry in REDCap, and 4) total duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry in REDCap. Analysis of variance and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare time durations. Of 287 sites, 188 sites (United States = 155, non-United States = 33) provided complete administrative data. There was considerable variability in duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry with median (interquartile range) of 28 days (16-50 d), with differences not significantly different by country (United States: 30 [17-50] vs non-United States: 23 d [8-46 d]; p = 0.08) or previous "multisite trial experience" (experienced: 27 [15-51] vs not experienced: 29 d [13-47 d]; p = 0.67). The U.S. sites had a higher proportion of female principal investigators (n = 77; 50%), compared with non-U.S. sites (n = 7; 21%; p = 0.002). Non-U.S. sites had a significantly shorter time to first patient data entry after REDCap access: 7 (1-28) versus 3 days (1-6 d) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this Society of Critical Care Medicine global VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, we identified considerable variability in time from IRB submission to first patient data entry with no significant differences by country or prior multicenter trial experience. However, there was a significant difference between US and non-U.S. sites in the time from REDCap access to first data entry.

Association of Early Steroid Administration With Outcomes of Children Hospitalized for COVID-19 Without Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

Importance: There is limited evidence for therapeutic options for pediatric COVID-19 outside of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Objective: To determine whether the use of steroids within 2 days of admission for non-MIS-C COVID-19 in children is associated with hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary objective was to determine their association with intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, inflammation, and fever defervescence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed data retrospectively for children (<18 years) who required hospitalization for non-MIS-C COVID-19. Data from March 2020 through September 2021 were provided by 58 hospitals in 7 countries who participate in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 registry. Exposure: Administration of steroids within 2 days of admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Length of stay in the hospital and ICU. Adjustment for confounders was done by mixed linear regression and propensity score matching. Results: A total of 1163 patients met inclusion criteria and had a median (IQR) age of 7 years (0.9-14.3). Almost half of all patients (601/1163, 51.7%) were male, 33.8% (392/1163) were non-Hispanic White, and 27.9% (324/1163) were Hispanic. Of the study population, 184 patients (15.8%) received steroids within 2 days of admission, and 979 (84.2%) did not receive steroids within the first 2 days. Among 1163 patients, 658 (56.5%) required respiratory support during hospitalization. Overall, patients in the steroids group were older and had greater severity of illness, and a larger proportion required respiratory and vasoactive support. On multivariable linear regression, after controlling for treatment with remdesivir within 2 days, country, race and ethnicity, obesity and comorbidity, number of abnormal inflammatory mediators, age, bacterial or viral coinfection, and disease severity according to ICU admission within first 2 days or World Health Organization ordinal scale of 4 or higher on admission, with a random intercept for the site, early steroid treatment was not significantly associated with hospital LOS (exponentiated coefficient, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.09; P = .42). Separate analyses for patients with an LOS of 2 days or longer (n = 729), those receiving respiratory support at admission (n = 286), and propensity score-matched patients also showed no significant association between steroids and LOS. Early steroid treatment was not associated with ICU LOS, fever defervescence by day 3, or normalization of inflammatory mediators. Conclusions and Relevance: Steroid treatment within 2 days of hospital admission in a heterogeneous cohort of pediatric patients hospitalized for COVID-19 without MIS-C did not have a statistically significant association with hospital LOS.

Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Viral Respiratory Infections.

Respiratory virus infections cause significant morbidity and mortality ranging from mild uncomplicated acute respiratory illness to severe complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, and death during epidemics and pandemics. We present a protocol to systematically study patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, due to respiratory viral pathogens to evaluate the natural history, prognostic biomarkers, and characteristics, including hospital stress, associated with clinical outcomes and severity. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter cohort of patients admitted to an acute care ward or ICU from at least 15 hospitals representing diverse geographic regions across the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with SARI caused by infection with respiratory viruses that can cause outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements include patient demographics, signs, symptoms, and medications; microbiology, imaging, and associated tests; mechanical ventilation, hospital procedures, and other interventions; and clinical outcomes and hospital stress, with specimens collected on days 0, 3, and 7-14 after enrollment and at discharge. The primary outcome measure is the number of consecutive days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (VFD) in the first 30 days after hospital admission. Important secondary outcomes include organ failure-free days before acute kidney injury, shock, hepatic failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation, 28-day mortality, adaptive immunity, as well as immunologic and microbiologic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SARI-Preparedness is a multicenter study under the collaboration of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery, Resilience Intelligence Network, and National Emerging Special Pathogen Training and Education Center, which seeks to improve understanding of prognostic factors associated with worse outcomes and increased resource utilization. This can lead to interventions to mitigate the clinical impact of respiratory virus infections associated with SARI.

Pre-hospital Aspirin Use and Patient Outcomes in COVID-19: Results from the International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS).

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this investigation is to assess the association between prehospital use of aspirin (ASA) and patient-centered outcomes in a large global cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This study utilizes data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry. Adult patients hospitalized from February 15th, 2020, to September 30th, 2021, were included. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess the association between pre-hospital use of ASA and the primary outcome of overall hospital mortality. RESULTS: 21,579 patients were included from 185 hospitals (predominantly US-based, 71.3%), with 4691 (21.7%) receiving pre-hospital ASA. Patients receiving ASA, compared to those without pre-admission ASA use, were generally older (median 70 vs. 59 years), more likely to be male (58.7 vs. 56.0%), caucasian (57.4 vs. 51.6%), and more commonly had higher rates of medical comorbidities. In multivariable analyses, patients receiving pre-hospital ASA had lower mortality (HR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97, p=0.01) and reduced hazard for progression to severe disease or death (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99, p=0.02) and more hospital free days (1.00 days, 95% CI 0.66-1.35, p=0.01) compared to those without pre-hospital ASA use. The overall direction and significance of the results remained the same in sensitivity analysis, after adjusting the multivariable model for time since pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: In this large international cohort, pre-hospital use of ASA was associated with a lower hazard for death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials may be warranted to assess the utility of pre-hospital use of ASA.

SARS-CoV-2 With Concurrent Respiratory Viral Infection as a Risk Factor for a Higher Level of Care in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients.

OBJECTIVE: As of early 2021, there have been over 3.5 million pediatric cases of SARS-CoV-2, including 292 pediatric deaths in the United States. Although most pediatric patients present with mild disease, they are still at risk for developing significant morbidity requiring hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) level of care. This study was performed to evaluate if the presence of concurrent respiratory viral infections in pediatric patients admitted to the hospital with SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an increased rate of ICU level of care. DESIGN: A multicenter, international, noninterventional, cross-sectional study using data provided through The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Network Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study database. SETTING: The medical ward and ICU of 67 participating hospitals. PATIENTS: Pediatric patients younger than 18 years hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 922 patients were included. Among these patients, 391 required ICU level care and 31 had concurrent non-SARS-CoV-2 viral coinfection. In a multivariate analysis, after accounting for age, positive blood culture, positive sputum culture, preexisting chronic medical conditions, the presence of a viral respiratory coinfection was associated with need for ICU care (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-9.4; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection with viral respiratory coinfection and the need for ICU care. Further research is needed to identify other risk factors that can be used to derive and validate a risk-stratification tool for disease severity in pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2.

How do frontline healthcare workers learn from COVID-19 webinars during a pandemic? An online survey study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic severely restricted in-person learning. As a result, many educational institutions switched to online platforms to continue teaching. COVID-19 webinars have been useful for rapidly disseminating information to frontline healthcare workers. While conducting COVID-19 webinars through online platforms is a popular method to train medical professionals, their effectiveness has never been investigated. Our aim was to ascertain the usefulness of COVID-19 webinars during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of about 400 frontline healthcare workers. 112 people responded to the survey (response rate = 28%). In it, we asked several questions to determine whether webinars had been a useful resource to help deal with COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: We found that a majority of healthcare worker respondents had favorable opinions of online education during the pandemic as around 78% of respondents either agreed or highly agreed that webinars are a useful source of knowledge. A significant proportion (34%) did not participate in webinars and gave time constraints as their main reason for not participating. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that while online education is a great way to disseminate information quickly to a large amount of people, it also comes with its disadvantages. As we transition into a post-pandemic world, we need to make sure that online teaching is designed with the best interests of the healthcare workers in mind to ensure that we get the most out of it.

Association of Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. SUBJECTS: Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.