Faculty Bibliography

Respiratory failure is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. There are no validated lower airway biomarkers to predict clinical outcome. We investigated whether bacterial respiratory infections were associated with poor clinical outcome of COVID-19 in a prospective, observational cohort of 589 critically ill adults, all of whom required mechanical ventilation. For a subset of 142 patients who underwent bronchoscopy, we quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, analysed the lower respiratory tract microbiome using metagenomics and metatranscriptomics and profiled the host immune response. Acquisition of a hospital-acquired respiratory pathogen was not associated with fatal outcome. Poor clinical outcome was associated with lower airway enrichment with an oral commensal (Mycoplasma salivarium). Increased SARS-CoV-2 abundance, low anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and a distinct host transcriptome profile of the lower airways were most predictive of mortality. Our data provide evidence that secondary respiratory infections do not drive mortality in COVID-19 and clinical management strategies should prioritize reducing viral replication and maximizing host responses to SARS-CoV-2.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

BACKGROUND:Analyses of blood biomarkers involved in the host response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral infection can reveal distinct biological pathways and inform development and testing of therapeutics for COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate host endothelial, epithelial and inflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19. METHODS:We prospectively enrolled 171 ICU patients, including 78 (46%) patients positive and 93 (54%) negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection from April to September, 2020. We compared 22 plasma biomarkers in blood collected within 24 h and 3 days after ICU admission. RESULTS:In critically ill COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, the most common ICU admission diagnoses were respiratory failure or pneumonia, followed by sepsis and other diagnoses. Similar proportions of patients in both groups received invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of study enrollment. COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients had similar rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome, severe acute kidney injury, and in-hospital mortality. While concentrations of interleukin 6 and 8 were not different between groups, markers of epithelial cell injury (soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, sRAGE) and acute phase proteins (serum amyloid A, SAA) were significantly higher in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19, adjusting for demographics and APACHE III scores. In contrast, angiopoietin 2:1 (Ang-2:1 ratio) and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (sTNFR-1), markers of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation, were significantly lower in COVID-19 (p < 0.002). Ang-2:1 ratio and SAA were associated with mortality only in non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS:These studies demonstrate that, unlike other well-studied causes of critical illness, endothelial dysfunction may not be characteristic of severe COVID-19 early after ICU admission. Pathways resulting in elaboration of acute phase proteins and inducing epithelial cell injury may be promising targets for therapeutics in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN/METHODS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS:Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS:Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.

Mortality among patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure is high and there are no known lower airway biomarkers that predict clinical outcome. We investigated whether bacterial respiratory infections and viral load were associated with poor clinical outcome and host immune tone. We obtained bacterial and fungal culture data from 589 critically ill subjects with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. On a subset of the subjects that underwent bronchoscopy, we also quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, analyzed the microbiome of the lower airways by metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses and profiled the host immune response. We found that isolation of a hospital-acquired respiratory pathogen was not associated with fatal outcome. However, poor clinical outcome was associated with enrichment of the lower airway microbiota with an oral commensal ( Mycoplasma salivarium ), while high SARS-CoV-2 viral burden, poor anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response, together with a unique host transcriptome profile of the lower airways were most predictive of mortality. Collectively, these data support the hypothesis that 1) the extent of viral infectivity drives mortality in severe COVID-19, and therefore 2) clinical management strategies targeting viral replication and host responses to SARS-CoV-2 should be prioritized.

BACKGROUND:Community transmission of coronavirus 2019 (Covid-19) was detected in the state of Washington in February 2020. METHODS:We identified patients from nine Seattle-area hospitals who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clinical data were obtained through review of medical records. The data reported here are those available through March 23, 2020. Each patient had at least 14 days of follow-up. RESULTS:We identified 24 patients with confirmed Covid-19. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 64±18 years, 63% were men, and symptoms began 7±4 days before admission. The most common symptoms were cough and shortness of breath; 50% of patients had fever on admission, and 58% had diabetes mellitus. All the patients were admitted for hypoxemic respiratory failure; 75% (18 patients) needed mechanical ventilation. Most of the patients (17) also had hypotension and needed vasopressors. No patient tested positive for influenza A, influenza B, or other respiratory viruses. Half the patients (12) died between ICU day 1 and day 18, including 4 patients who had a do-not-resuscitate order on admission. Of the 12 surviving patients, 5 were discharged home, 4 were discharged from the ICU but remained in the hospital, and 3 continued to receive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS:During the first 3 weeks of the Covid-19 outbreak in the Seattle area, the most common reasons for admission to the ICU were hypoxemic respiratory failure leading to mechanical ventilation, hypotension requiring vasopressor treatment, or both. Mortality among these critically ill patients was high. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

During 2014-2016, the largest outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in history occurred in West Africa. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) worked with health care providers to prepare for persons under investigation (PUIs) for EVD in New York City. From July 1, 2014, through December 29, 2015, we classified as a PUI a person with EVD-compatible signs or symptoms and an epidemiologic risk factor within 21 days before illness onset. Of 112 persons who met PUI criteria, 74 (66%) sought medical care and 49 (44%) were hospitalized. The remaining 38 (34%) were isolated at home with daily contact by DOHMH staff members. Thirty-two (29%) PUIs received a diagnosis of malaria. Of 10 PUIs tested, 1 received a diagnosis of EVD. Home isolation minimized unnecessary hospitalization. This case study highlights the importance of developing competency among clinical and public health staff managing persons suspected to be infected with a high-consequence pathogen.

Despite improvements in the management of in-hospital cardiac arrest over the past decade, in-hospital cardiac arrest continues to be associated with poor prognosis. This has led to the development of rapid response systems, hospital-wide efforts to improve patient outcomes by centering on prompt identification of decompensating patients, expert clinical management, and continuous quality improvement of processes of care. The rapid response system may include cardiac arrest teams, which are centered on identification and treatment of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, few evidence-based guidelines exist to guide the formation of such teams, and the degree of their variation across the United States has not been well described.