RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Brain activation to motor commands is seen in 15% of clinically unresponsive patients with acute brain injury. This state called cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is detectable by electroencephalogram (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging, predicts long-term recovery, and is recommended by recent guidelines to support prognostication. However, false negative CMD results are a particular concern, and occult aphasia in clinically unresponsive patients may be a major factor. This study aimed to quantify the impact of aphasia on CMD testing. METHODS: We prospectively studied 61 intensive care unit patients admitted with acute primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) who had behavioral evidence of command following or were able to mimic motor commands. All patients underwent an EEG-based motor command paradigm used to detect CMD and comprehensive aphasia assessments. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of brain activation, including aphasia types and associations with recovery of independence (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score ≥ 4). RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 50 completed aphasia and the EEG-based motor command paradigm. A total of 72% (n = 36) were diagnosed with aphasia. Patients with impaired comprehension (i.e., receptive or global aphasia) were less likely to show brain activation than those with intact comprehension (odds ratio [OR] 0.23 [95% confidence interval 0.05-0.89], p = 0.04). Brain activation was independently associated with Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended ≥ 4 by 12 months (OR 2.4 [95% confidence interval 1.2-5.0], p = 0.01) accounting for the Functional Outcome in Patients with Primary ICH score (OR1.3 [95% confidence interval 1.0-1.8], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Brain activation to motor commands is four times less likely for patients with primary ICH with impaired comprehension. False negative results due to occult receptive aphasia need to be considered when interpreting CMD testing. Early detection of brain activation may help predict long-term recovery in conscious patients with ICH.
RESUMEN
Background and Objectives: There have been numerous reports of neurologic manifestations identified in hospitalized patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Here, we identify the spectrum of associated neurologic symptoms and diagnoses, define the time course of their development, and examine readmission rates and mortality risk posthospitalization in a multiethnic urban cohort. Methods: We identify the occurrence of new neurologic diagnoses among patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in New York City. A retrospective cohort study was performed on 532 cases (hospitalized patients with new neurologic diagnoses within 6 weeks of positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory results between March 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020). We compare demographic and clinical features of the 532 cases with 532 controls (hospitalized COVID-19 patients without neurologic diagnoses) in a case-control study with one-to-one matching and examine hospital-related data and outcomes of death and readmission up to 6 months after acute hospitalization in a secondary case-only analysis. Results: Among the 532 cases, the most common new neurologic diagnoses included encephalopathy (478, 89.8%), stroke (66, 12.4%), and seizures (38, 7.1%). In the case-control study, cases were more likely than controls to be male (58.6% vs 52.8%, p = 0.05), had baseline neurologic comorbidities (36.3% vs 13.0%, p < 0.0001), and were to be treated in an intensive care unit (62.0% vs 9.6%, p < 0.0001). Of the 394 (74.1%) cases who survived acute hospitalization, more than half (220 of 394, 55.8%) were readmitted within 6 months, with a mortality rate of 23.2% during readmission. Discussion: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 and new neurologic diagnoses have significant morbidity and mortality postdischarge. Further research is needed to define the effect of neurologic diagnoses during acute hospitalization on longitudinal post-COVID-19-related symptoms including neurocognitive impairment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUNDAlthough convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at 5 sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or normal control plasma. The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSOf 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to receive normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.68, P = 0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, P = 0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected.CONCLUSIONIn adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810.FUNDINGAmazon Foundation, Skoll Foundation.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Brasil/epidemiología , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/mortalidad , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunización Pasiva , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ciudad de Nueva York/epidemiología , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Sueroterapia para COVID-19RESUMEN
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.
RESUMEN
An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nearly 30,000 patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have been hospitalized in New York City as of April 14th, 2020. Data on the epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this setting are needed. METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical, biomarker, and treatment data on critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed-COVID-19 admitted to two hospitals in northern Manhattan between March 2nd and April 1st, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, frequency of vasopressor use and renal-replacement-therapy, and time to clinical deterioration following hospital admission. The relationship between clinical risk factors, biomarkers, and in-hospital mortality was modeled using Cox-proportional-hazards regression. Each patient had at least 14 days of observation. RESULTS: Of 1,150 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during the study period, 257 (22%) were critically ill. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-72); 170 (66%) were male. Two-hundred twelve (82%) had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (63%; 162/257) and diabetes mellitus (36%; 92/257). One-hundred-thirty-eight patients (54%) were obese, and 13 (5%) were healthcare workers. As of April 14th, 2020, in-hospital mortality was 33% (86/257); 47% (122/257) of patients remained hospitalized. Two-hundred-one (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (median 13 days [IQR 9-17]), and 54% (138/257) and 29% (75/257) required vasopressors and renal-replacement-therapy, respectively. The median time to clinical deterioration following hospital admission was 3 days (IQR 1-6). Older age, hypertension, chronic lung disease, and higher concentrations of interleukin-6 and d-dimer at admission were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Critical illness among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York City is common and associated with a high frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation, extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction, and substantial in-hospital mortality.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 - 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 - 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.
Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus/inmunología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Adulto , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , COVID-19 , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto , Humanos , Inmunización Pasiva/efectos adversos , Inmunización Pasiva/métodos , Pandemias , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Sueroterapia para COVID-19RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Over 40â000 patients with COVID-19 have been hospitalised in New York City (NY, USA) as of April 28, 2020. Data on the epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this setting are needed. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study took place at two NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals affiliated with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in northern Manhattan. We prospectively identified adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to both hospitals from March 2 to April 1, 2020, who were diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and were critically ill with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and collected clinical, biomarker, and treatment data. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, frequency of vasopressor use and renal replacement therapy, and time to in-hospital clinical deterioration following admission. The relation between clinical risk factors, biomarkers, and in-hospital mortality was modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Follow-up time was right-censored on April 28, 2020 so that each patient had at least 28 days of observation. FINDINGS: Between March 2 and April 1, 2020, 1150 adults were admitted to both hospitals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, of which 257 (22%) were critically ill. The median age of patients was 62 years (IQR 51-72), 171 (67%) were men. 212 (82%) patients had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (162 [63%]) and diabetes (92 [36%]). 119 (46%) patients had obesity. As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) patients had died and 94 (37%) remained hospitalised. 203 (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 18 days (IQR 9-28), 170 (66%) of 257 patients received vasopressors and 79 (31%) received renal replacement therapy. The median time to in-hospital deterioration was 3 days (IQR 1-6). In the multivariable Cox model, older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1·31 [1·09-1·57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR 1·76 [1·08-2·86]), chronic pulmonary disease (aHR 2·94 [1·48-5·84]), higher concentrations of interleukin-6 (aHR 1·11 [95%CI 1·02-1·20] per decile increase), and higher concentrations of D-dimer (aHR 1·10 [1·01-1·19] per decile increase) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. INTERPRETATION: Critical illness among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in New York City is common and associated with a high frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation, extrapulmonary organ dysfunction, and substantial in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and the Columbia University Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research.