A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe ARDS From COVID-19.

RATIONALE: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-induced respiratory failure. METHODS: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham-control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At the third interim analysis, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the pre-specified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n=222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (RR 0.88;95% CI 0.64,1.21;p=0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank 117.3 [IQR:60.0,169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [IQR:54.0,162.5] in controls; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of ARDS at 30-days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) of control patients (OR 1.36;95% CI 0.57, 3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate/severe COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Clinical trial registration available at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID:NCT04371393. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Portable Chest Radiography as an Exclusionary Test for Adverse Clinical Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiography (CXR) often is performed in the acute setting to help understand the extent of respiratory disease in patients with COVID-19, but a clearly defined role for negative chest radiograph results in assessing patients has not been described. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is portable CXR an effective exclusionary test for future adverse clinical outcomes in patients suspected of having COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Charts of consecutive patients suspected of having COVID-19 at five EDs in New York City between March 19, 2020, and April 23, 2020, were reviewed. Patients were categorized based on absence of findings on initial CXR. The primary outcomes were hospital admission, mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and mortality. RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred forty-five adult patients, 474 (14.6%) with negative initial CXR results, were reviewed. Among all patients, negative initial CXR results were associated with a low probability of future adverse clinical outcomes, with negative likelihood ratios of 0.27 (95% CI, 0.23-0.31) for hospital admission, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.37) for mechanical ventilation, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.09-0.40) for ARDS, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.51) for mortality. Among the subset of 955 patients younger than 65 years and with a duration of symptoms of at least 5 days, no patients with negative CXR results died, and the negative likelihood ratios were 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12-0.25) for hospital admission, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.02-0.36) for mechanical ventilation, and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64) for ARDS. INTERPRETATION: Initial CXR in adult patients suspected of having COVID-19 is a strong exclusionary test for hospital admission, mechanical ventilation, ARDS, and mortality. The value of CXR as an exclusionary test for adverse clinical outcomes is highest among young adults, patients with few comorbidities, and those with a prolonged duration of symptoms.

Pregnant women with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 have increased composite morbidity compared with nonpregnant matched controls.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, as community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became increasingly prevalent, pregnant women seemed to be equally susceptible to developing coronavirus disease 2019. Although the disease course usually appears mild, severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 seem to lead to substantial morbidity, including intensive care unit admission with prolonged hospital stay, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and even death. Although there are recent reports regarding the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pregnancy, there is a lack of information regarding the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant women. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the outcomes of severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant, reproductive-aged women. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of women with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection hospitalized with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in 4 academic medical centers in New York City and 1 in Philadelphia between March 12, 2020, and May 5, 2020. The cases consisted of pregnant women admitted specifically for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 and not for obstetrical indications. The controls consisted of reproductive-aged, nonpregnant women admitted for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was a composite morbidity that includes the following: death, a need for intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or a need for high-flow nasal cannula O2 supplementation. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admission, length of stay, a need for discharge to long-term acute care facilities, and discharge with a home O2 requirement. RESULTS: A total of 38 pregnant women with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed infections were admitted to 5 institutions specifically for coronavirus disease 2019, 29 (76.3%) meeting the criteria for severe disease status and 9 (23.7%) meeting the criteria for critical disease status. The mean age and body mass index were markedly higher in the nonpregnant control group. The nonpregnant cohort also had an increased frequency of preexisting medical comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The pregnant women were more likely to experience the primary outcome when compared with the nonpregnant control group (34.2% vs 14.9%; P=.03; adjusted odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-18.2). The pregnant patients experienced higher rates of intensive care unit admission (39.5% vs 17.0%; P<.01; adjusted odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-17.5). Among the pregnant women who underwent delivery, 72.7% occurred through cesarean delivery and the mean gestational age at delivery was 33.8±5.5 weeks in patients with severe disease status and 35±3.5 weeks in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 status. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 are at an increased risk for certain morbidities when compared with nonpregnant controls. Despite the higher comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension in the nonpregnant controls, the pregnant cases were at an increased risk for composite morbidity, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit admission. These findings suggest that pregnancy may be associated with a worse outcome in women with severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019. Our study suggests that similar to other viral infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, pregnant women may be at risk for greater morbidity and disease severity.

A Survey of Labor and Delivery Practices in New York City during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Recently, a novel coronavirus, precisely severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), that causes the disease novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a worldwide pandemic. Over a million cases have been confirmed in the United States. As of May 5, 2020, New York State has had over 300,000 cases and 24,000 deaths with more than half of the cases and deaths occurring in New York City (NYC). Little is known, however, of how this virus impacts pregnancy. Given this lack of data and the risk for severe disease in this relatively immunocompromised population, further understanding of the obstetrical management of COVID-19, as well as hospital level preparation for its control, is crucial. Guidance has come from expert opinion, professional societies and public health agencies, but to date, there is no report on how obstetrical practices have adapted these recommendations to their local situations. We therefore developed an internet-based survey to elucidate the practices put into place to guide the care of obstetrical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We surveyed obstetrical leaders in four academic medical centers in NYC who were implementing and testing protocols at the height of the pandemic. We found that all sites made changes to their practices, and that there appeared to be agreement with screening and testing for COVID-19, as well as labor and delivery protocols, for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. We found less consensus with respect to inpatient antepartum fetal surveillance. We hope that this experience is useful to other centers as they formulate their plans to face this pandemic. KEY POINTS: · Practices changed to accommodate public health needs.. · Most practices are screened for novel COVID-19 on admission.. · Fetal testing in COVID-19 patients varied..