An immune-protein score combining TRAIL, IP-10 and CRP for predicting severe COVID-19 disease

COVID-19 patients are oftentimes over- or under-treated due to a deficit in predictive management tools. This study reports derivation of an algorithm that integrates the host levels of TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP into a single numeric score that is an early indicator of severe outcome for COVID-19 patients and can identify patients at-risk to deteriorate. 394 COVID-19 patients were eligible; 29% meeting a severe outcome (intensive care unit admission/non-invasive or invasive ventilation/death). The score's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.86, superior to IL-6 (AUC 0.77; p = 0.033) and CRP (AUC 0.78; p < 0.001). Likelihood of severe outcome increased significantly (p < 0.001) with higher scores. The score differentiated severe patients who further deteriorated from those who improved (p = 0.004) and projected 14-day survival probabilities (p < 0.001). The score accurately predicted COVID-19 patients at-risk for severe outcome, and therefore has potential to facilitate timely care escalation and de-escalation and appropriate resource allocation.

Transfer of Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients With COVID-19 Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Interhospital transport of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients bears transport-associated risks. It is unknown how interhospital extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) transfer of COVID-19 patients by mobile ECMO units affects ARDS mortality. We compared the outcome of 94 COVID-19 patients cannulated in primary care hospitals and retrieved by mobile ECMO-teams to that of 84 patients cannulated at five German ECMO centers. Patients were recruited from March 2020 to November 2021. Twenty-six transports were airborne, 68 were land-based. Age, sex, body-mass-index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, days invasively ventilated, and P/F-Ratio before ECMO initiation were similar in both groups. Counting only regional transports (≤250 km), mean transport distance was 139.5 km ± 17.7 km for helicopter (duration 52.5 ± 10.6 minutes) and 69.8 km ± 44.1 km for ambulance or mobile intensive care unit (duration 57.6 ± 29.4 minutes). Overall time of vvECMO support (20.4 ± 15.2 ECMO days for transported patients vs. 21.0 ± 20.5 for control, p = 0.83) and days invasively ventilated (27.9 ± 18.1 days vs. 32.6 ± 25.1 days, p = 0.16) were similar. Overall mortality did not differ between transported patients and controls (57/94 [61%] vs. 51/83 [61%], p = 0.43). COVID-19 patients cannulated and retrieved by mobile ECMO-teams have no excess risk compared with patients receiving vvECMO at experienced ECMO centers. Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, limited comorbidities, and no contraindication for ECMO should be referred early to local ECMO centers.

[Interhospital critical care transport]

Critically ill patients in need of specialized diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, but are being cared for in a hospital without such equipment, have to be transferred to appropriate centers without discontinuation of current critical care (interhospital critical care transfer). These transfers are resource intensive, challenging, and require high logistical effort, which must be managed by a specialized and highly trained team, predeployment planning and efficient crew-resource management strategies. If planned adequately, interhospital critical care transfers can be performed safely without frequent adverse events. Beside routine interhospital critical care transfers, there are special missions (e.g., for patients in quarantine or supported by extracorporeal organ support) that might require adaption of the team composition or standard equipment. This article describes interhospital critical care transport missions including their different phases and special circumstances.

[Interhospital critical care transport]

Critically ill patients in need of specialized diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, but are being cared for in a hospital without such equipment, have to be transferred to appropriate centers without discontinuation of current critical care (interhospital critical care transfer). These transfers are resource intensive, challenging, and require high logistical effort, which must be managed by a specialized and highly trained team, predeployment planning and efficient crew-resource management strategies. If planned adequately, interhospital critical care transfers can be performed safely without frequent adverse events. Beside routine interhospital critical care transfers, there are special missions (e.g., for patients in quarantine or supported by extracorporeal organ support) that might require adaption of the team composition or standard equipment. This article describes interhospital critical care transport missions including their different phases and special circumstances.

Comparison of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality videos as substitute for in-hospital teaching during coronavirus lockdown: a survey with graduate medical students in Germany

As a consequence of the continued Covid-19 lockdown in Germany, in-hospital teaching for medical students was impossible. While lectures and other theoretical training were relatively easily converted into online sessions using platforms such as Moodle, Zoom and Microsoft Teams, this was not the case for practical skills and clinical interventions, such as bronchoscopy or colonoscopy. This study describes a workaround that was implemented at the Saarland University Hospital utilizing virtual reality equipment to convey the impressions of shadowing clinical procedures to the students without physical presence. To achieve this, 3D 180° videos of key clinical interventions of various internal medicine specialities were recorded, cut, and censored. The videos were uploaded to the e-learning YouTube channel of our institution and shared with the students via the private share function. The students could choose whether to use a VR-viewer to watch the videos immersively or to watch them without a viewer on a screen non-immersively. At the end of the course after 1 week, the students completed a questionnaire anonymously focusing on learning-success regarding the presented topics, a self-assessment, and an evaluation of the course. A total of 27 students watched the videos with a VR-Viewer and 74 watched non-immersively. Although the VR-viewer group self-assessed their expertise higher, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the learning-success test score. However, students in the VR-viewer group rated the learning atmosphere, comprehensibility, and overall recommendation of the course significantly higher. They also agreed significantly more to the statement, that they gained a better conception of the presented procedures, and that virtual reality might be an appropriate tool for online teaching. Video-assisted teaching facilitates learning and might be a valuable add-on to conventional teaching.Abbreviations: Covid-19: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; 3D: three-dimensional; 2D: Two-dimensional; VR: virtual reality.

Plasma Metabolome Alterations Discriminate between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Pneumonia

Pneumonia is a common cause of morbidity and mortality and is most often caused by bacterial pathogens. COVID-19 is characterized by lung infection with potential progressive organ failure. The systemic consequences of both disease on the systemic blood metabolome are not fully understood. The aim of this study was to compare the blood metabolome of both diseases and we hypothesize that plasma metabolomics may help to identify the systemic effects of these diseases. Therefore, we profiled the plasma metabolome of 43 cases of COVID-19 pneumonia, 23 cases of non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and 26 controls using a non-targeted approach. Metabolic alterations differentiating the three groups were detected, with specific metabolic changes distinguishing the two types of pneumonia groups. A comparison of venous and arterial blood plasma samples from the same subjects revealed the distinct metabolic effects of pulmonary pneumonia. In addition, a machine learning signature of four metabolites was predictive of the disease outcome of COVID-19 subjects with an area under the curve (AUC) of 86 ± 10 %. Overall, the results of this study uncover systemic metabolic changes that could be linked to the etiology of COVID-19 pneumonia and non-COVID-19 pneumonia.

TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and C-reactive protein in predicting the progression of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early prognostication of COVID-19 severity will potentially improve patient care. Biomarkers, such as TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), and C-reactive protein (CRP), might represent possible tools for point-of-care testing and severity prediction.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, we analyzed serum levels of TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP in patients with COVID-19, compared them with control subjects, and investigated the association with disease severity.

RESULTS

A total of 899 measurements were performed in 132 patients (mean age 64 years, 40.2% females). Among patients with COVID-19, TRAIL levels were lower (49.5 vs 87 pg/ml, P = 0.0142), whereas IP-10 and CRP showed higher levels (667.5 vs 127 pg/ml, P <0.001; 75.3 vs 1.6 mg/l, P <0.001) than healthy controls. TRAIL yielded an inverse correlation with length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and National Early Warning Score, and IP-10 showed a positive correlation with disease severity. Multivariable regression revealed that obesity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.434, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.005-29.38), CRP (aOR 1.014, 95% CI 1.002-1.027), and peak IP-10 (aOR 1.001, 95% CI 1.00-1.002) were independent predictors of in-ICU mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated a correlation between COVID-19 severity and TRAIL, IP-10, and CRP. Multivariable regression showed a role for IP-10 in predicting unfavourable outcomes, such as in-ICU mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04655521.

32. Host Immune-Protein Signature Combining TRAIL, IP-10 and CRP for Early and Accurate Prediction of Severe COVID-19 Outcome

Background

Accurately identifying COVID-19 patients at-risk to deteriorate remains challenging. Dysregulated immune responses impact disease progression and development of life-threatening complications. Tools integrating host immune-protein expression have proven useful in determining infection etiology and hold potential for prognosticating disease severity.

Methods

Adults with COVID-19 were enrolled at medical centers in Israel, Germany, and the United States (Figure 1). Severe outcome was defined as intensive care unit admission, non-invasive or invasive ventilation, or death. Tumor necrosis factor related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL), interferon gamma inducible protein-10 (IP-10) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured using an analyzer providing values within 15 minutes (MeMed Key®). A signature indicating the likelihood of severe outcome was derived generating a score (0-100).

Description of derivation cohort

RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.

Results

Between March and November 2020, 518 COVID-19 patients were enrolled, of whom 394 were eligible, 29% meeting a severe outcome. Age ranged between 19-98 (median 61.5), with 59.1% male. Patients meeting severe outcomes exhibited higher levels of CRP and IP-10 and lower levels of TRAIL (Figure 2; p < 0.001). Likelihood of severe outcome increased significantly (p < 0.001) with higher scores. The signature’s area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.91). Performance was not confounded by age, sex, or comorbidities and was superior to IL-6 (AUC 0.77; p = 0.033) and CRP (AUC 0.78; p < 0.001). Clinical deterioration proximal to blood draw was associated with higher signature score. Scores of patients meeting a first outcome over 3 days after blood draw were significantly (p < 0.001) higher than scores of non-severe patients (Figure 3). Moreover, the signature differentiated patients who further deteriorated after meeting a severe outcome from those who improved (p = 0.004) and projected 14-day survival probabilities (p < 0.001; Figure 4).

TRAIL, IP-10, CRP and the severity signature score are differentially expressed in severe and non-severe COVID-19 infection

Dots represent patients and boxes denote median and interquartile range (IQR)

The signature score of patients meeting a severe outcome on or after the day of blood draw is significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the signature score of non-severe patients.

Dots represents patients and boxes denote median and IQR

Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for signature score bins

Conclusion

The derived signature combined with a rapid measurement platform has potential to serve as an accurate predictive tool for early detection of COVID-19 patients at risk for severe outcome, facilitating timely care escalation and de-escalation and appropriate resource allocation.

Disclosures

Alon Angel, n/a, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Niv Samuel Mastboim, BSc, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Oded Shaham, PhD, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Tahel Ilan Ber, MD, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Roy Navon, MSc, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Einav Simon, PhD, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Michal Rosenberg, PhD, MeMed (Employee) Yael Israeli, PhD, MeMed (Employee) Mary Hainrichson, PhD, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Noa Avni, PhD, MeMed (Employee) Eran Reiner, MD, MeMed (Employee) Kfir Oved, MD, PhD, MeMed (Board Member, Employee, Shareholder) Ilya Kagan, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Shaul Lev, M.D, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Dror Diker, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Amir Jarjou’i, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ramzi Kurd, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Guy Danziger, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Cihan Papan, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Sergey Motov, MD, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Maanit Shapira, Ph.D, MeMed (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Tanya Gottlieb, PhD, MeMed (Employee, Shareholder) Eran Eden, PhD, MeMed (Board Member, Employee, Shareholder)

Distinct Patterns of Blood Cytokines Beyond a Cytokine Storm Predict Mortality in COVID-19

Background

COVID-19 comprises several severity stages ranging from oligosymptomatic disease to multi-organ failure and fatal outcomes. The mechanisms why COVID-19 is a mild disease in some patients and progresses to a severe multi-organ and often fatal disease with respiratory failure are not known. Biomarkers that predict the course of disease are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate a large spectrum of established laboratory measurements.

Patients and Methods

Patients from the prospective PULMPOHOM and CORSAAR studies were recruited and comprised 35 patients with COVID-19, 23 with conventional pneumonia, and 28 control patients undergoing elective non-pulmonary surgery. Venous blood was used to measure the serum concentrations of 79 proteins by Luminex multiplex immunoassay technology. Distribution of biomarkers between groups and association with disease severity and outcomes were analyzed.

Results

The biomarker profiles between the three groups differed significantly with elevation of specific proteins specific for the respective conditions. Several biomarkers correlated significantly with disease severity and death. Uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) analysis revealed a significant separation of the three disease groups and separated between survivors and deceased patients. Different models were developed to predict mortality based on the baseline measurements of several protein markers. A score combining IL-1ra, IL-8, IL-10, MCP-1, SCF and CA-9 was associated with significantly higher mortality (AUC 0.929).

Discussion

Several newly identified blood markers were significantly increased in patients with severe COVID-19 (AAT, EN-RAGE, myoglobin, SAP, TIMP-1, vWF, decorin) or in patients that died (IL-1ra, IL-8, IL-10, MCP-1, SCF, CA-9). The use of established assay technologies allows for rapid translation into clinical practice.

Killer immunoglobulin-like receptor 2DS5 is associated with recovery from coronavirus disease 2019

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous advances in the identification of risk factors for the development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), factors that promote recovery from COVID-19 remain unknown. Natural killer (NK) cells provide innate immune defense against viral infections and are known to be activated during moderate and severe COVID-19. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) mediate NK cell cytotoxicity through recognition of an altered MHC-I expression on infected target cells. However, the influence of KIR genotype on outcome of patients with COVID-19 has not been investigated so far. We retrospectively analyzed the outcome associations of NK cell count and KIR genotype of patients with COVID-19 related severe ARDS treated on our tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) between February and June 2020 and validated our findings in an independent validation cohort of patients with moderate COVID-19 admitted to our tertiary medical center.

RESULTS

Median age of all patients in the discovery cohort (n = 16) was 61 years (range 50-71 years). All patients received invasive mechanical ventilation; 11 patients (68%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients who recovered from COVID-19 had significantly higher median NK cell counts during the whole observational period compared to patients who died (121 cells/µL, range 16-602 cells/µL vs 81 cells/µL, range 6-227 cells/µL, p-value = 0.01). KIR2DS5 positivity was significantly associated with shorter time to recovery (21.6 ± 2.8 days vs. 44.6 ± 2.2 days, p-value = 0.01). KIR2DS5 positivity was significantly associated with freedom from transfer to ICU (0% vs 9%, p-value = 0.04) in the validation cohort which consisted of 65 patients with moderate COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

NK cells and KIR genotype might have an impact on recovery from COVID-19.

Comparison of isoflurane and propofol sedation in critically ill COVID-19 patients-a retrospective chart review

Purpose

In this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome).

Methods

Charts of all 20 patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to the ICU of a German University Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic between 22/03/2020 and 21/04/2020 were reviewed. Among screened 333 days, isoflurane was used in 97 days, while in 187 days, propofol was used for 12 h or more. The effect and dose of these two sedatives were compared. Mixed sedation days were excluded.

Results

Patients’ age (median [interquartile range]) was 64 (60–68) years. They were invasively ventilated for 36 [21–50] days. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were high (0.96 ± 0.41 Vol %); multiple linear regression yielded the ratio (isoflurane infusion rate)/(minute ventilation) as the single best predictor. Infusion rates were decreased under ECMO (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 7.1 ± 3.2 ml∙h⁻¹; p < 0.001). In five patients, the maximum recommended dose of propofol of 4 mg∙hour⁻¹∙kg⁻¹ABW was exceeded on several days. On isoflurane compared to propofol days, neuro-muscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were used less frequently (11% versus 21%; p < 0.05), as were co-sedatives (7% versus 31%, p < 0.001); daily opioid doses were lower (720 [720–960] versus 1080 [720–1620] mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001); and RASS scores indicated deeper levels of sedation (− 4.0 [− 4.0 to − 3.0] versus − 3.0 [− 3.6 to − 2.5]; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Isoflurane provided sufficient sedation with less NMBAs, less polypharmacy and lower opioid doses compared to propofol. High doses of both drugs were needed in severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Conservative management of COVID-19 associated hypoxaemia

With great interest we read the article by Voshaaret al. [1] reporting data from a retrospective analysis of 78 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated with or without invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors conclude that avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation by allowing permissive hypoxaemia was superior to current treatment standards and guidelines. Overall mortality in this cohort was 7.7% (six out of 78), but 50% (four out of eight) of the patients supported with invasive mechanical ventilation eventually died [1].

This correspondence argues that data presented previously cannot justify a novel approach for treating hypoxic patients with severe #COVID19https://bit.ly/3dLaPlk

Extracorporeal life support in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A EuroELSO international survey

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.

Pulmonary Hemodynamics and Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure and ARDS

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that COVID-19-associated severe respiratory failure (CARDS) might differ from usual acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to failing autoregulation of pulmonary vessels and higher shunt. We sought to investigate pulmonary hemodynamics and ventilation properties in patients with CARDS compared to patients with ARDS of pulmonary origin.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 patients treated in our ICU in 04/2020 and a comparison of the data to matched controls with ARDS due to respiratory infections treated in our ICU from 01/2014 to 08/2019 for whom pulmonary artery catheter data were available.

RESULTS

CARDS patients (n = 10) had ventilation characteristics similar to those of ARDS (n = 10) patients. Nevertheless, mechanical power applied by ventilation was significantly higher in CARDS patients (23.4 ± 8.9 J/min) than in ARDS (15.9 ± 4.3 J/min; P < 0.05). COVID-19 patients had similar pulmonary artery pressure but significantly lower pulmonary vascular resistance, as cardiac output was higher in CARDS vs. ARDS patients (P < 0.05). Shunt fraction and dead space were similar in CARDS compared to ARDS (P > 0.05) and were correlated with hypoxemia in both groups. The arteriovenous pCO₂ difference (▵pCO₂) was elevated (CARDS 5.5 ± 2.8 mmHg vs. ARDS 4.7 ± 1.1 mmHg; P > 0.05), as was the P_(v-a)CO₂/C_(a-v)O₂ ratio (CARDS mean 2.2 ± 1.5 vs. ARDS 1.7 ± 0.8; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients seems to differ only slightly from ARDS regarding ventilation characteristics and pulmonary hemodynamics. Our data indicate microcirculatory dysfunction. More data need to be collected to assure these findings and gain more pathophysiological insights into COVID-19 and respiratory failure.