World Health Organization Ordinal Scale Research Articles

Hospitalization Endpoint in Clinical Trials of Outpatient Settings: using Anti-SARS-COV-2 Therapy as an Example.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a set of outcome measures for trials primarily aimed at hospitalised patients. However, a gap exists in defining outcome standards for non-hospitalised patients. Therefore, this study aims to discuss hospitalisation as a primary outcome in outpatient trials and its potential pitfalls, specifically focusing on trials related to anti-SARS-COV-2 therapy. In this narrative review, researchers thoroughly searched MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2020 to December 2022, targeting Phase III randomized controlled trials involving outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. The trials were specifically related to anti-SARS-COV-2 monoclonal antibodies or antiviral agents. The study collected essential data, including the type of intervention, comparator, primary objective, primary endpoint, and the use of estimands in the trial. The search identified 12 trials that evaluated the efficacy of anti-SARS COV-2 therapies in a predefined population. Three studies used hospitalisation and death as primary endpoints in high-risk patients receiving monoclonal antibodies. Nine studies assessed the efficacy of several antiviral agents: four trials used hospitalisation and death as the main endpoints, while others used different measures such as virologic measures using the Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction test (RT-PCR), the eight-point WHO ordinal scale, symptom alleviation by Day 7 and time to clinical response. Choosing hospitalization as an endpoint may provide meaningful data such as the cost-effectiveness ratio of a drug. However, different hospital utilisation patterns and investigator decisions could bias clinical outcomes if no specific criteria are considered. Therefore, investigators should have clear criteria for determining variables that influence this measure.

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p=0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p=0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p=0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

A randomised phase 2a study to investigate the effects of blocking interleukin-33 with tozorakimab in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: ACCORD-2.

Increased serum interleukin (IL)-33 predicts poor outcomes in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined the efficacy and safety of tozorakimab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralises IL-33, in improving outcomes in ACCORD-2 (EudraCT: 2020-001736-95). ACCORD-2 was an open-label, phase 2a study in adults hospitalised with COVID-19. Patients were randomised 1:1 to tozorakimab 300 mg plus standard of care (SoC) or SoC alone. The primary end-point was time to clinical response (sustained clinical improvement of ≥2 points on the World Health Organization ordinal scale, discharge from hospital or fit for discharge) by day 29. Other end-points included death or respiratory failure, mortality and intensive care unit admission by day 29, and safety. Serum IL-33/soluble stimulated-2 (sST2) complex levels were measured by high-sensitivity immunoassay. Efficacy analyses included 97 patients (tozorakimab+SoC, n=53; SoC, n=44). Median time to clinical response did not differ between the tozorakimab and SoC arms (8.0 and 9.5 days, respectively; HR 0.96, 80% CI 0.70-1.31; one-sided p=0.33). Tozorakimab was well tolerated and the OR for risk of death or respiratory failure with treatment versus SoC was 0.55 (80% CI 0.27-1.12; p=0.26), while the OR was 0.31 (80% CI 0.09-1.06) in patents with high baseline serum IL-33/sST2 complex levels. Overall, ACCORD-2 results suggest that tozorakimab could be a novel therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, warranting further investigation in confirmatory phase 3 studies.

1146. Real-World Experience Highlighting Tocilizumab Use in the Treatment of COVID-19

Abstract Background Tocilizumab (TCZ) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration under emergency use authorization for treatment of COVID-19 in patients requiring supplemental oxygen, non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Despite multiple clinical trials, there remain unanswered questions surrounding TCZ use. Methods This multi-hospital retrospective cohort study included patients who received TCZ for COVID-19 between January 29th, 2021 and June 30th, 2021 at five University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) hospitals. Patients were eligible for TCZ per UPHS criteria if they scored ≥ 5 on the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale for ≤ 24 hours and experienced < 14 days of acute COVID-19 symptoms. Descriptive statistics were performed to characterize usage within the health system. Results This study evaluated 134 patients who received TCZ for the treatment of COVID-19. TCZ was ordered a median of 22 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 13.2 – 41.5) after hospital admission. A majority of patients (76.1%) were admitted to the intensive care unit and a small portion (12.7%) had a WHO ordinal scale that was >5 at time of TCZ order entry. All patients received concomitant dexamethasone therapy at a total prednisone equivalent of 400 mg (IQR, 335.6 – 480). Overall 33.6% of patients experienced an adverse event (ADE) within 30 days of TCZ administration (Table 1). Most common ADEs included bacterial infection (29.9%), hepatitis (6.7%), and fungal infection (3%); other etiologies of ADEs were not accounted for. All-cause mortality (Table 2) at day 30 occurred in 20.9% of patients and median time from TCZ administration to mortality was 12.5 days (IQR 5 – 18.3). Ninety-six patients in the cohort (71.6%) were discharged by day 30. Of the subgroup discharged by day 30, the majority (70.8%) were discharged to home. Conclusion Patients who received TCZ for severe COVID-19 experienced 20.9% mortality; mortality was higher among those with higher ordinal scale at the time of TCZ dosing. A large portion of patients (70.8%) were discharged to home within 30 days. One third of patients experienced an adverse event, primarily bacterial or fungal infection. Our experience may be useful in counseling patients about anticipated effects of TCZ. Disclosures George L Anesi, MD, MSCE, AHRQ, NHLBI, UpToDate: Advisor/Consultant|AHRQ, NHLBI, UpToDate: Grant/Research Support Kathleen Degnan, MD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support.

308. Do lung ultrasound abnormalities change during hospitalization for COVID-19?

Abstract Background While point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been used to track disease resolution, temporal trends in lung ultrasound (LUS) findings among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is not well-characterized. Methods We studied 413 LUS scans in 244 participants ≥ 18 years of age hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia within 28 days of symptom onset from April, 2020 until September, 2021 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore Maryland. All patients were scanned using a 12-lung zone protocol and repeat scans were obtained in 3 days (N=114), 7 days (N=53), and weekly (N=9) from the initial scan. Participants were followed to determine clinical outcomes until hospital discharge and vital status at 28-days. Ultrasounds were independently reviewed for lung artifacts, and the composite mean LUS score (ranging from 0 to 3) across lung zones was determined. Trends of mean LUS scores and % lung fields with A-lines (indicating proportion of normal lung fields) were plotted by peak severity (mild, moderate, and severe defined by the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale) over time from symptom onset. Differences in mean LUS score or % A-lines changes over time between peak severity levels were evaluated using a Kruskal-Wallis test and linear mixed-effected models with an exchangeable correlation structure. Results Among 244 patients in our cohort (mean age of 58.2 (SD 15.0) years, and 55.7% female) (Table 1), there was no change in average mean LUS scores between the first two visits by severity groups (Figure 1; Kruskal-Wallis p=0.63). Mean LUS scores were elevated by 0.22 (p< 0.001) in a dose-response manner regardless of duration of illness, but there was no change over time associated with peak severity (p=0.73). Similarly, percentage of A-lines were in 13.9% less lung fields for each increase in peak severity (p< 0.001; Figure 2) regardless of duration of illness. However, a change in mean LUS score did not differ significantly among peak severity levels (p=0.36). Conclusion Mean LUS scores correlated with clinical severity among hospitalized adults when assessed cross-sectionally, however mean LUS score did not change or differ between peak severity levels over the time course of hospitalization. These results do not support serial LUS scans to monitor disease progression. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

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

There is limited evidence for therapeutic options for pediatric COVID-19 outside of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). 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. 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. Administration of steroids within 2 days of admission. Length of stay in the hospital and ICU. Adjustment for confounders was done by mixed linear regression and propensity score matching. 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. 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.

Modulation of thromboinflammation in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients with aprotinin, low molecular weight heparin, and anakinra: The DAWn‐Antico study

BackgroundThromboinflammation plays a central role in severe COVID‐19. The kallikrein pathway activates both inflammatory pathways and contact‐mediated coagulation. We investigated if modulation of the thromboinflammatory response improves outcomes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. MethodsInmulticenter open‐label randomized clinical trial (EudraCT 2020‐001739‐28), patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 were 1:2 randomized to receive standard of care (SOC) or SOC plus study intervention. The intervention consisted of aprotinin (2,000,000 IE IV four times daily) combined with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH; SC 50 IU/kg twice daily on the ward, 75 IU/kg twice daily in intensive care). Additionally, patients with predefined hyperinflammation received the interleukin‐1 receptor antagonist anakinra (100 mg IV four times daily). The primary outcome was time to a sustained 2‐point improvement on the 7‐point World Health Organization ordinal scale for clinical status, or discharge. FindingsBetween 24 June 2020 and 1 February 2021, 105 patients were randomized, and 102 patients were included in the full analysis set (intervention N = 67 vs. SOC N = 35). Twenty‐five patients from the intervention group (37%) received anakinra. The intervention did not affect the primary outcome (HR 0.77 [CI 0.50‐1.19], p = 0.24) or mortality (intervention n = 3 [4.6%] vs. SOC n = 2 [5.7%], HR 0.82 [CI 0.14‐4.94], p = 0.83). There was one treatment‐related adverse event in the intervention group (hematuria, 1.49%). There was one thrombotic event in the intervention group (1.49%) and one in the SOC group (2.86%), but no major bleeding. ConclusionsIn hospitalized COVID‐19 patients, modulation of thromboinflammation with high‐dose aprotinin and LMWH with or without anakinra did not improve outcome in patients with moderate to severe COVID‐19.

Plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen levels are associated with progression to severe disease in hospitalized COVID-19

BackgroundStudies quantifying SARS-CoV-2 have focused on upper respiratory tract or plasma viral RNA with inconsistent association with clinical outcomes. The association between plasma viral antigen levels and clinical outcomes has not been previously studied. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-antigen) concentration and both markers of host response and clinical outcomes.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 N-antigen concentrations were measured in the first study plasma sample (D0), collected within 72 h of hospital admission, from 256 subjects admitted between March 2020 and August 2021 in a prospective observational cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The rank correlations between plasma N-antigen and plasma biomarkers of tissue damage, coagulation, and inflammation were assessed. Multiple ordinal regression was used to test the association between enrollment N-antigen plasma concentration and the primary outcome of clinical deterioration at one week as measured by a modified World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale. Multiple logistic regression was used to test the association between enrollment plasma N-antigen concentration and the secondary outcomes of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation at 28 days, and death at 28 days. The prognostic discrimination of an externally derived “high antigen” cutoff of N-antigen ≥ 1000 pg/mL was also tested.ResultsN-antigen on D0 was detectable in 84% of study participants. Plasma N-antigen levels significantly correlated with RAGE (r = 0.61), IL-10 (r = 0.59), and IP-10 (r = 0.59, adjusted p = 0.01 for all correlations). For the primary outcome of clinical status at one week, each 500 pg/mL increase in plasma N-antigen level was associated with an adjusted OR of 1.05 (95% CI 1.03–1.08) for worse WHO ordinal status. D0 plasma N-antigen ≥ 1000 pg/mL was 77% sensitive and 59% specific (AUROC 0.68) with a positive predictive value of 23% and a negative predictive value of 93% for a worse WHO ordinal scale at day 7 compared to baseline. D0 N-antigen concentration was independently associated with ICU admission and 28-day mechanical ventilation, but not with death at 28 days.ConclusionsPlasma N-antigen levels are readily measured and provide important insight into the pathogenesis and prognosis of COVID-19. The measurement of N-antigen levels early in-hospital course may improve risk stratification, especially for identifying patients who are unlikely to progress to severe disease.

Tofacitinib Associated with Reduced Intubation Rates in the Management of Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Preliminary Experience.

BackgroundThe second wave of COVID-19 pandemic was not only associated with a rapid and severe surge in the number of cases but also limited availability of recommended medicines. Baricitinib has been known to reduce recovery time in COVID-19 pneumonia in association with remdesivir. Tofacitinib, with limited evidence, was used in severe COVID-19 pneumonia based on its similarity of action with baricitinib.MethodsData of all patients admitted to the COVID-19 intensive care unit in the month of April were accessed and analyzed. Data of patients who were on other immunomodulators, invasive ventilation, or suffering from end-stage organ diseases were excluded from the analysis.ResultsOut of 73 patients, data of 50 were analyzed. Twenty-five received tofacitinib and the other 25 were managed with standard of care. Age, comorbidities, and gender distribution between the two groups were similar. On day 7 of admission, the change in SpO2/FiO2 ratio was 1.26 ± 1 and 0.72 ± 1 in the tofacitinib group and control group, respectively. Similarly, a higher number of subjects in the control group showed worsening in the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale (36 vs 12%, p = 0.01). The clinical objective improvement was similar in the two groups. The intubation rates in the tofacitinib group were significantly lower than that in the control group (32% vs 8%, p = 0.034).ConclusionTofacitinib, in this retrospective single-center experience, was found to be associated with reduced intubation rates and reduced worsening in the WHO ordinal scale. There was no difference in mortality in the two groups.How to cite this articleSingh PK, Lalwani LK, Govindagoudar MB, Aggarwal R, Chaudhry D, Kumar P, et al. Tofacitinib Associated with Reduced Intubation Rates in the Management of Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Preliminary Experience. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(10):1108–1112.

Colchicine for the Treatment of Cardiac Injury in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease-19.

IntroductionThe impact of colchicine on hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related cardiac injury is unknown.Materials and MethodsIn this multicenter randomized controlled open-label clinical trial, we randomized hospitalized adult patients with documented COVID-19 and evidence of cardiac injury in a 1:1 ratio to either colchicine 0.6 mg po twice daily for 30 days plus standard of care or standard of care alone. Cardiac injury was defined as elevated cardiac biomarkers, new arrhythmia, new/worsened left ventricular dysfunction, or new pericardial effusion. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, or need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) at 90 days. Key secondary endpoints included the individual components of the primary endpoint and change in and at least 2-grade reduction in the World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale at 30 days. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04355143).ResultsWe enrolled 93 patients, 48 patients in the colchicine arm and 45 in the control arm. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the colchicine and control arms (19 vs. 15%, p = 0.78), nor in the individual components of all-cause mortality (17 vs. 15%, p = 1.0) and need for mechanical ventilation (8 vs. 5%, p = 0.68); no patients in either group required MCS. The change in (−1.8 ± 2.4 vs. −1.2 ± 2.0, p = 0.12) and at least 2-grade reduction (75 vs. 75%, p = 1.0) in the WHO ordinal scale was also similar between groups.ConclusionPatients hospitalized with COVID-19 and evidence of cardiac injury did not benefit from colchicine therapy.

Comparison of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Influenza Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen in a Cohort Study: Clinical Impact and Resource Consumption.

BackgroundTo compare clinical characteristics, outcomes, and resource consumption of patients with COVID-19 and seasonal influenza requiring supplemental oxygen.MethodsRetrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary-care hospital. Patients admitted due to seasonal influenza between 2017 and 2019, or with COVID-19 between March and May 2020 requiring supplemental oxygen were compared. Primary outcome: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: 90-day mortality and hospitalization costs. Attempted sample size to detect an 11% difference in mortality was 187 patients per group.ResultsCOVID-19 cases were younger (median years, 67 (IQR 54-78) vs 76 (IQR 64-83); p < 0.001) and more frequently overweight whereas influenza cases had more hypertension, immunosuppression, and chronic heart, respiratory and renal disease. Compared to influenza, COVID-19 cases had more pneumonia (98% vs 60%, <0.001), higher MEWS and CURB-65 scores and were more likely to show worse progression on the WHO ordinal scale (33% vs 4%; p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rate was higher for COVID-19 than for influenza: 15% vs 5% (p = 0.001). The median age of non-surviving cases was 81 (IQR 74-88) and 77.5 (IQR 65-84) (p = 0.385), respectively. COVID-19 was independently associated with 30-day (HR 4.6, 95%CI, 2-10.4) and 90-day (HR 5.2, 95%CI, 2.4-11.4) mortality. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a subgroup considering only patients with pneumonia, did not show different trends. Regarding resource consumption, COVID-19 patients had longer hospital stays and higher critical care, pharmacy, and complementary test costs.ConclusionsAlthough influenza patients were older and had more comorbidities, COVID-19 cases requiring supplemental oxygen on admission had worse clinical and economic outcomes.

Management strategies and outcomes in renal transplant recipients recovering from COVID-19: A retrospective, multicentre, cohort study

SummaryBackgroundThere is an enormous knowledge gap on management strategies, clinical outcomes, and follow-up after kidney transplantation (KT) in recipients that have recovered from coronavirus disease (COVID-19).MethodsWe conducted a multi-center, retrospective analysis in 23 Indian transplant centres between June 26, 2020 to December 1, 2021 on KT recipients who recovered after COVID-19 infections. We analyzed clinical and biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (AR) incidence and used cox-proportional modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for predictors of AR. We also performed competing risk analysis. Additional outcome measures included graft loss, all-cause mortality, waiting time from a positive real-time polymerase test (RT-PCR) to KT, laboratory parameters, and quality of life in follow-up.FindingsAmong 372 KT which included 38(10·21%) ABO-incompatible, 12(3·22%) sensitized, 64(17·20%) coexisting donors with COVID-19 history and 20 (5·37%) recipients with residual radiographic abnormalities, the incidence of AR was 34 (9·1%) with 1(0·26%) death censored graft loss, and 4(1·07%) all-cause mortality over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 241 (106–350) days. In our cox hazard proportional analysis, absence of oxygen requirement during COVID-19 compared to oxygen need [HR = 0·14(0·03–0·59); p-value = 0·0071], and use of thymoglobulin use compared to other induction strategies [HR = 0·17(0·03–0.95); p-value = 0·044] had a lower risk for AR. Degree of Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DR mismatch had the highest risk of AR [HR = 10.2(1·74–65·83); p-value = 0·011]. With competing risk analysis, with death as a competing event, HLA DR mismatch, and oxygen requirement continued to be associated with AR. Age, gender, obesity, inflammatory markers, dialysis vintage, steroid use, sensitization and ABO-incompatibility have not been associated with a higher risk of AR. The median duration between COVID-19 real time polymerase test negativity to transplant was 88(40–145) days (overall), and ranged from 88(40–137), 65(42–120), 110(49–190), and 127(64–161) days in World Health Organization ordinal scale ≤ 3, 4, 5, and 6–7, respectively. There was no difference in quality of life, tacrolimus levels, blood counts, and mean serum creatinine assessed in patients with a past COVID-19 infection independent of severity.InterpretationOur findings support that the outcomes of KT after COVID-19 recovery are excellent with absence of COVID-19 sequelae during follow-up. Additionally, there does not seem to be a need for changes in the induction/immunosuppression regimen based on the severity of COVID-19.FundingSanofi

Impact of AYUSH interventions on COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a great burden on governments and the medical fraternity globally. Many clinical studies from the Indian system of Traditional Medicines [Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy (AYUSH)] have been carried out to find appropriate solutions. Through a living systematic review and meta-analysis, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of the Traditional System of Indian Medicine (AYUSH system) in lowering the incidence, duration, and severity of COVID-19. Methods: We will search the following databases: Pubmed; the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL); the Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI); Digital Helpline for Ayurveda Research Articles (DHARA); AYUSH research portal; Google scholar and World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database. Clinical improvement, WHO ordinal scale, viral clearance, incidences of COVID-19 infection, and mortality will be considered as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be use of O2 therapy or mechanical ventilator, admission to high dependency unit or emergency unit, duration of hospitalization, the time to symptom resolution, and adverse events. Data will be synthesized, with RevMan 5.4 tool and the risk of bias will be assessed with RoB 2 (for RCTs) and ROBINS I (for NRSIs). Certainty of evidence will be assessed through the GRADE (Gradingof Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) tool. The review will be updated bi-monthly with two updates. Conclusion: This living systematic review will be the first to address AYUSH interventions in COVID-19, synthesizing the full spectrum of Indian Traditional System of Medicine against COVID-19. It will facilitate professionals, guideline developers, and authorities with up to date synthesis on interventions periodically to make health-care decisions on AYUSH therapies in the management of COVID-19.

Impact of AYUSH interventions on COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a great burden on governments and the medical fraternity globally. Many clinical studies from the Indian system of Traditional Medicines [Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy (AYUSH)] have been carried out to find appropriate solutions. Through a living systematic review and meta-analysis, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of the Traditional System of Indian Medicine (AYUSH system) in lowering the incidence, duration, and severity of COVID-19. Methods: We will search the following databases: Pubmed; the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL); the Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI); Digital Helpline for Ayurveda Research Articles (DHARA); AYUSH research portal; Google scholar and World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database. Clinical improvement, WHO ordinal scale, viral clearance, incidences of COVID-19 infection, and mortality will be considered as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be use of O2 therapy or mechanical ventilator, admission to high dependency unit or emergency unit, duration of hospitalization, the time to symptom resolution, and adverse events. Data will be synthesized, with RevMan 5.4 tool and the risk of bias will be assessed with RoB 2 (for RCTs) and ROBINS I (for NRSIs). Certainty of evidence will be assessed through the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) tool. The review will be updated bi-monthly with two updates. Conclusion: This living systematic review will be the first to address AYUSH interventions in COVID-19, synthesizing the full spectrum of Indian Traditional System of Medicine against COVID-19. It will facilitate professionals, guideline developers, and authorities with up to date synthesis on interventions periodically to make health-care decisions on AYUSH therapies in the management of COVID-19.

Associations between the von Willebrand Factor-ADAMTS13 Axis, Complement Activation, and COVID-19 Severity and Mortality.

Background Endothelial and complement activation were both associated with immunothrombosis, a key determinant of COVID-19 severity, but their interrelation has not yet been investigated. Objectives We aimed to determine von Willebrand factor (VWF) antigen (VWF:Ag) concentration, VWF collagen binding activity (VWF:CBA), a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with a thrombospondin type 1 motif, member 13 (ADAMTS13) activity (ADAMTS13:Ac), and their ratios in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and to investigate how these parameters and their constellation with complement activation relate to disease severity and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19. Methods Samples of 102 hospitalized patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positivity were included in our observational cohort study. Patients were stratified according to the peak severity of COVID-19 disease in agreement with the World Health Organization ordinal scale. Twenty-six convalescent plasma donors with previous COVID-19 disease formed the control group. VWF:Ag concentration and VWF:CBA were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); ADAMTS13:Ac was determined by fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Complement C3 and C3a were measured by turbidimetry and ELISA, respectively. Clinical covariates and markers of inflammation were extracted from hospital records. Results VWF:Ag and VWF:CBA were elevated in all groups of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and increased in parallel with disease severity. ADAMTS13:Ac was decreased in patients with severe COVID-19, with the lowest values in nonsurvivors. High (> 300%) VWF:Ag concentrations or decreased (< 67%) ADAMTS13:Ac were associated with higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease or in-hospital mortality. The concomitant presence of decreased ADAMTS13:Ac and increased C3a/C3 ratio—indicating complement overactivation and consumption—was a strong independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. Conclusion Our results suggest that an interaction between the VWF-ADAMTS13 axis and complement overactivation and consumption plays an important role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19.

Comprehensive Rehabilitation in Severely Ill Inpatients With COVID-19: A Cohort Study in a Tertiary Hospital.

BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the effects of comprehensive rehabilitation management on functional recovery and examine the correlation between clinical parameters and improvements in functional outcomes in severe-to-critical inpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a tertiary hospital.MethodsPost-acute COVID-19 patients who had a World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale of 5–7, underwent intensive care, and received comprehensive rehabilitation management, including exercise programs, nutritional support, dysphagia evaluation, and psychological care were included. The appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (SMI), Medical Research Council sum score, handgrip strength, number of repetitions in the 1-minute sit-to-stand test, gait speed, Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC) were evaluated at hospital stay, discharge, and 1-month follow-up. The correlation between the rehabilitation dose and improvement in each outcome measure was analyzed.ResultsOverall, 37 patients were enrolled, of whom 59.5% and 32.4% had a score of 6 and 7 on the WHO ordinal scale, respectively. Lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital were 33.6 ± 23.9 and 63.8 ± 36.5 days. Outcome measures revealed significant improvements at discharge and 1-month follow-up. The SMI was significantly increased at the 1-month follow-up (6.13 [5.24–7.76]) compared with that during the hospital stay (5.80 [5.39–7.05]). We identified dose-response associations between the rehabilitation dose and FAC (ρ = 0.46) and BBS (ρ = 0.50) scores. Patients with older age, longer hospitalization, longer stay at the intensive care unit, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, a more depressive mood, and poorer nutritional status revealed poorer improvement in gait speed at the 1-month follow-up.ConclusionComprehensive rehabilitation management effectively improved muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance in severe-to-critical COVID-19 patients. Dose-response relationship of rehabilitation and functional improvement emphasizes the importance of intensive post-acute inpatient rehabilitation in COVID-19 survivors.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05104411

Clinical Efficacy of Inhaled Nitric Oxide in Preventing the Progression of Moderate to Severe COVID-19 and Its Correlation to Viral Clearance: Results of a Pilot Study

Abstract Hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at high risk of adverse outcomes. Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) has shown anti-viral and immunomodulatory effects in vitro. However, in vivo evidence of efficacy in hypoxic COVID-19 is sparse. This open label feasibility study was conducted at a single referral center in South India and evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed iNO in improving clinical outcomes in COVID-19 and its correlation with viral clearance. We recruited hypoxemic COVID-19 patients and allocated them into treatment (iNO) and control groups (1:1). Viral clearance on day 5 favored the treatment group (100% vs 72%, P &lt; 0.01). The speed of viral clearance as adjudged by normalized longitudinal cycle threshold (Ct) values was positively impacted in the treatment group. The proportion of patients who attained clinical improvement, defined as a ≥2-point change on the World Health Organization ordinal scale, was higher in the iNO cohort (n = 11, 79%) as compared to the control group (n = 4, 36%) (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.09-37.73, P = 0.032). The proportion of patients progressing to mechanical ventilation in the control group (4/11) was significantly higher than in the treatment group (0/14). The all-cause 28-day mortality was significantly different among the study arms, with 36% (4/11) of the patients dying in the control group while none died in the treatment group. The numbers needed to treat to prevent an additional poor outcome of death was estimated to be 2.8. Our study demonstrates the putative role of repurposed iNO in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients and calls for extended validation.

447. An Ordinal Scale Assessing SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patient Outcomes Using Electronic Health Records

BackgroundA major challenge to identifying effective treatments for COVID-19 has been the conflicting results offered by small, often underpowered clinical trials. The World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale (OS) has been used to measure clinical improvement among clinical trial participants and has the benefit of measuring effect across the spectrum of clinical illness. We modified the WHO OS to enable assessment of COVID-19 patient outcomes using electronic health record (EHR) data.MethodsEmploying the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database of EHR data from 50 sites in the United States, we assessed patient outcomes, April 1,2020 to March 31, 2021, among those with a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, using the following modification of the WHO OS: 1=Outpatient, 3=Hospitalized, 5=Required Oxygen (any), 7=Mechanical Ventilation, 9=Organ Support (pressors; ECMO), 11=Death. OS is defined over 4 weeks beginning at first diagnosis and recalculated each week using the patient’s maximum OS value in the corresponding 7-day period. Modified OS distributions were compared across time using a Pearson Chi-Squared test.ResultsThe study sample included 1,446,831 patients, 54.7% women, 14.7% Black, 14.6% Hispanic/Latinx. Pearson Chi-Sq P< 0.0001 was obtained comparing the distribution of 2nd Quarter 2020 OS with the distribution of later time points for Week 4.Table 1. OS at week 1 and 4 by quarter The study sample included 1,446,831 patients, 54.7% women, 14.7% Black, 14.6% Hispanic/Latinx. Pearson Chi-Sq P< 0.0001 was obtained comparing the distribution of 2nd Quarter 2020 OS with the distribution of later time points for Week 4.ConclusionAll Week 4 OS distributions significantly improved from the initial period (April-June 2020) compared with subsequent months, suggesting improved management. Further work is needed to determine which elements of care are driving the improved outcomes. Time series analyses must be included when assessing impact of therapeutic modalities across the COVID pandemic time frame.Disclosures Sally L. Hodder, M.D., Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)

Optimal Triage for COVID-19 Patients Under Limited Health Care Resources With a Parsimonious Machine Learning Prediction Model and Threshold Optimization Using Discrete-Event Simulation: Development Study.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented burden on health care systems.ObjectiveWe aimed to effectively triage COVID-19 patients within situations of limited data availability and explore optimal thresholds to minimize mortality rates while maintaining health care system capacity.MethodsA nationwide sample of 5601 patients confirmed with COVID-19 until April 2020 was retrospectively reviewed. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and logistic regression analysis were used to develop prediction models for the maximum clinical severity during hospitalization, classified according to the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI). The recursive feature elimination technique was used to evaluate the maintenance of model performance when clinical and laboratory variables were eliminated. Using populations based on hypothetical patient influx scenarios, discrete-event simulation was performed to find an optimal threshold within limited resource environments that minimizes mortality rates.ResultsThe cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the baseline XGBoost model that utilized all 37 variables was 0.965 for OSCI ≥6. Compared to the baseline model’s performance, the AUROC of the feature-eliminated model that utilized 17 variables was maintained at 0.963 with statistical insignificance. Optimal thresholds were found to minimize mortality rates in a hypothetical patient influx scenario. The benefit of utilizing an optimal triage threshold was clear, reducing mortality up to 18.1%, compared with the conventional Youden index.ConclusionsOur adaptive triage model and its threshold optimization capability revealed that COVID-19 management can be achieved via the cooperation of both the medical and health care management sectors for maximum treatment efficacy. The model is available online for clinical implementation.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.