Search

Background: To describe outcomes of high-risk patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated with sotrovimab, other monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), or antivirals, and patients who did not receive early COVID-19 treatment. We also evaluate the comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab versus no treatment in preventing severe clinical outcomes., Methods: This observational retrospective cohort study analyzed Mayo Clinic electronic health records. Non-hospitalized adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from May 26, 2021 and April 23, 2022 and at high risk of COVID-19 progression were eligible. The primary outcome was 29-day all-cause hospitalization and/or death. Outcomes were described for patients treated with sotrovimab, other mAbs, or antivirals, and eligible but untreated patients, and compared between sotrovimab-treated and propensity score (PS)-matched untreated cohorts., Results: We included 35,485 patients (sotrovimab, 1369; other mAbs, 6488; antivirals, 133; high-risk untreated, 27,495). A low proportion of patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 33/1369, 2.4%), other mAbs (n = 147/6488, 2.3%), or antivirals (n = 2/133, 1.5%) experienced all-cause hospitalization or death. Among high-risk untreated patients, the percentage of all-cause hospitalization or death was 3.3% (n = 910/27,495). In the PS-matched analysis, 2.5% (n = 21/854) of sotrovimab-treated patients experienced all-cause hospitalization and/or death versus 2.8% (n = 48/1708) of untreated patients (difference, -0.4%; p = 0.66). Significantly fewer sotrovimab-treated patients required intensive care unit admission (0.5% vs 1.8%; difference, -1.3%; p = 0.002) or respiratory support (3.5% vs 8.7%; difference, -5.2%; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the proportion of sotrovimab-treated and PS-matched untreated patients experiencing 29-day all-cause hospitalization or mortality, although significantly fewer sotrovimab-treated patients required intensive care unit admission or respiratory support., Competing Interests: CFB, DCG, MD, HJB, and EJL are employees of, and/or shareholders in, GSK. VP was an employee of GSK at the time of the study and is now an employee of KVM Analytics. KC, ESC, AP, and TEW are employees of, and/or shareholders in, nference. CC was an employee of nference at the time of the study. JCO received grants from nference, Inc, and the MITRE corporation. RRR received research grants from Gilead, Regeneron, and Roche (funds directed to the institution), serves as a member of DSMB of Novartis (completed) and Endpoint Adjudication Committee of Allovir, and serves as Board of Director of the American Society of Transplantation. Mayo Clinic may stand to gain financially from the successful outcome of the research. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (Copyright: © 2024 Bell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The following list is a reflection of what has been reported to IDSA. To provide thorough transparency, IDSA requires full disclosure of all relationships, regardless of relevancy to the guideline topic. Evaluation of such relationships as potential conflicts of interest is determined by a review process which includes assessment by the Board of Directors liaison to the Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee and, if necessary, the Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Committee. The assessment of disclosed relationships for possible conflicts of interest is based on the relative weight of the financial relationship (ie, monetary amount) and the relevance of the relationship (ie, the degree to which an association might reasonably be interpreted by an independent observer as related to the topic or recommendation of consideration). The reader of these guidelines should be mindful of this when the list of disclosures is reviewed. L. B. receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Harvard Medical School; serves as chair of the Antimicrobial Drug Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration; and is involved in HIV and COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials conducted in collaboration with the NIH, HIV Vaccine Trials Network, COVID Vaccine Prevention Network, International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Crucell/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Moderna, Military HIV Research Program, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Ragon Institute. A. B. received an honorarium from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. V. C.-C. C. receives research funding from the Health and Medical Research Fund; serves on the Research Committee of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA); and serves on the international editorial boards for the Journal of Hospital Infection, Infection Prevention in Practice, and Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology. K. M. E. serves as a scientific advisor for Merck, Bionet, IBM, Sanofi, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Seqirus, Inc, Moderna, Inc, GSK plc, Roche, and Pfizer; and receives research funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH. J. C. G. serves in an advisory role for Qpex, Shionogi, and Merck; receives research funding from Merck; previously served in an advisory role for Accelerate Diagnostics, Achaogen, Astellas Pharma, Melinta Therapeutics, Nabriva Therapeutics, Paratek Pharma, scPharmaceuticals, Spero Therapeutics, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals; and previously served on the speaker’s bureau for Astellas Pharma, Melinta Therapeutics, Merck, and Shionogi. R. T. G. serves as a panel member on the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel; serves as the immediate Past Chair for the HIV Medicine Association; receives research funding from the NIH; and has served on the scientific advisory board for Gilead Sciences, Inc, and Merck. W. J. M. serves in an advisory role for Seqirus, Inc; receives research funding from Ansun Biopharma, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karius, Melinta Therapeutics, Merck, Moderna, Nabriva Therapeutics, Paratek Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals; and has previously received research funding from Abbott Laboratories. M. H. M receives research funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Endocrine Society, and the Society for Vascular Surgery; serves as a Board member for the Evidence Foundation; has received research funding from the American Society of Hematology and the World Health Organization (WHO); and has served as a guideline methodologist for the WHO. R. A. M. receives research funding from the NIH, the WHO, the American College of Rheumatology, the American Society of Hematology, and Bohringer Ingelheim; serves as Chair of the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER); serves on the Methods Committee for Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Work Group; serves on the Clinical Guidelines Committee for the Canadian Society of Nephrology; and previously served on the Clinical Guidelines Committee for the American College of Physicians (ACP). M. M. N. co-chairs the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society COVID-19 Therapies Task Force, will receive support to attend as a speaker the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference & Exhibition in October 2022, and has received research funding from Gilead Sciences. J. C. O. serves as an advisor for Bates College; holds stocks in Doximity, Inc; receives research funding from the MITRE Corporation and Nference, Inc; and serves on committees for the Society for Critical Care Medicine, SHEA, and University Lake School. R. W. S. served in an advisory role for GSK plc and Gilead Sciences. S. Soham serves in advisory roles for Amplyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc, ReViral Ltd, Adamis Pharmaceuticals, and Immunome; holds stocks in Immunome; receives research funding from Ansun BioPharma, Zeteo Tech, Inc, F2G, Emergent Biosolutions, Shionogi, Shire (now Takeda), Cidara Therapeutics, US Department of Defense (Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense), Defense Health Agency, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the State of Maryland, NIH/NIAID, NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Mental Wellness Foundation, Moriah Fund, Octopharma, HealthNetwork Foundation, Shear Family Foundation, Johns Hopkins University, and Mayo Clinic; serves as the Governor of the ACP; has received research funding from the University of Nebraska; and has served as an advisor for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Acidophil, LLC, Adagio Therapeutics, Inc, Celltrion Healthcare, and Intermountain Health. A. H. S. receives research funding from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. S. Sultan serves on guideline panels for the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and receives research funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program. Y. F.-Y. receives honoraria from the Evidence Foundation for evidence reviews and teaching, the AGA for evidence reviews, and ICER for committee meetings; serves as a Director for the Evidence Foundation and for the US GRADE Network; and served on an Independent Appraisal Committee for ICER. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: The fluoroquinolone restriction for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile infection (FIRST) trial is a multisite clinical study in which sites carry out a preauthorization process via electronic health record-based best-practice alert (BPA) to optimize the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in acute care settings. Our research team worked closely with clinical implementation coordinators to facilitate the dissemination and implementation of this evidence-based intervention. Clinical implementation coordinators within the antibiotic stewardship team (AST) played a pivotal role in the implementation process; however, considerable research is needed to further understand their role. In this study, we aimed to (1) describe the roles and responsibilities of clinical implementation coordinators within ASTs and (2) identify facilitators and barriers coordinators experienced within the implementation process., Methods: We conducted a directed content analysis of semistructured interviews, implementation diaries, and check-in meetings utilizing the conceptual framework of middle managers' roles in innovation implementation in healthcare from Urquhart et al., Results: Clinical implementation coordinators performed a variety of roles vital to the implementation's success, including gathering and compiling information for BPA design, preparing staff, organizing meetings, connecting relevant stakeholders, evaluating clinical efficacy, and participating in the innovation as clinicians. Coordinators identified organizational staffing models and COVID-19 interruptions as the main barriers. Facilitators included AST empowerment, positive relationships with staff and oversight/governance committees, and using diverse implementation strategies., Conclusion: When implementing healthcare innovations, clinical implementation coordinators facilitated the implementation process through their roles and responsibilities and acted as strategic partners in improving the adoption and sustainability of a fluoroquinolone preauthorization protocol., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: We analyzed over 22,000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomes of patient samples tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories during a 2-year period in the COVID-19 pandemic, which included Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern to examine the roles and relationships of Minnesota virus transmission. We found that Hennepin County, the most populous county, drove the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the state after including the formation of earlier clades including 20A, 20C, and 20G, as well as variants of concern Alpha and Delta. We also found that Hennepin County was the source for most of the county-to-county introductions after an initial predicted introduction with the virus in early 2020 from an international source, while other counties acted as transmission "sinks." In addition, major policies, such as the end of the lockdown period in 2020 or the end of all restrictions in 2021, did not appear to have an impact on virus diversity across individual counties., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The role of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunosuppressed individuals remains controversial. We describe the course of COVID-19 in patients who had received anti-CD20 therapy within the 3 years prior to infection. We compared outcomes between those treated with and those not treated with high titer SARS-CoV2 convalescent plasma. We identified 144 adults treated at Mayo clinic sites who had received anti-CD20 therapies within a median of 5.9 months prior to the COVID-19 index date. About one-third (34.7%) were hospitalized within 14 days and nearly half (47.9%) within 90 days. COVID-19 directed therapy included anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (n = 30, 20.8%), and, among those hospitalized within 14 days (n = 50), remdesivir (n = 45, 90.0%), glucocorticoids (n = 36, 72.0%) and convalescent plasma (n = 24, 48.0%). The duration from receipt of last dose of anti-CD20 therapy did not correlate with outcomes. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 14.7%. Administration of convalescent plasma within 14 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with any study outcome. Further study of COVID-19 in CD20-depleted individuals is needed focusing on the early administration of new and potentially combination antiviral agents, associated or not with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are an undesired perioperative outcome. Recent studies have shown increases in hospital acquired infections during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The objective of this study was to evaluate postoperative SSIs in the COVID-19-era compared to a historical cohort at a large, multicenter, academic institution., Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) inpatient surgical procedures between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. Patients from the COVID-19-era (March-December 2020) were compared and matched 1:1 with historical controls (2018/2019) utilizing the standardized infection ratio (SIR) to detect difference., Results/discussion: During the study period, 29,904 patients underwent NHSN procedures at our institution. When patients from the matched cohort (2018/2019) were compared to the COVID-19-era cohort (2020), a decreased risk of SSI was observed following colorectal surgery (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.65, 1.37], P = .76), hysterectomy (RR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.39, 1.99], P = .75), and knee prothesis surgery (RR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.52, 1.74], P = .88), though not statistically significant. An increased risk of SSI was observed following hip prosthesis surgery (RR 1.09, 95% CI [0.68, 1.75], P = .72), though not statistically significant., Conclusions: The risk of SSI in patients who underwent NHSN inpatient surgical procedures in 2020 with perioperative COVID-19 precautions was not significantly different when compared to matched controls at our large, multicenter, academic institution., (Copyright © 2022 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The emergency use authorisation of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) for children aged 5-17 years has resulted in rapid vaccination in the paediatric population. However, there are few studies of adverse events associated with vaccination in children. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the adverse events of two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination in the paediatric population., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient electronic health records (EHRs) of children aged 5-17 years who received the primary two-dose series of the BNT162b2 vaccine between Jan 5, 2021, and Aug 5, 2022, at the Mayo Clinic Health System (MN, FL, AZ, IA, and WI), USA. Using natural language processing, we automatically curated adverse events reported by physicians in EHR clinical notes before and after vaccination. To determine significant adverse events after BNT162b2 vaccination, we calculated risk differences, which was defined as the percentage difference between the rate of children with an adverse event after a vaccine dose and the baseline rate of children with an adverse event before vaccination. 95% CIs and p values were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen score method., Findings: 56 436 individuals aged 5-17 years (20 227 aged 5-11 years and 36 209 aged 12-17 years) with EHRs in the Mayo Clinic Health Systems were included in the study. Overall, the reporting of adverse events remained low in passive surveillance. Serious adverse events were rare after the first and second doses of BNT162b2, with rates of anaphylaxis (six [0·01%] of 56 436), myocarditis (five [0·01%]), and pericarditis (three [0·01%]) consistent with previous studies. Among the 20 227 5-11-year-olds, there were increased risks of fatigue (58 after second dose vs 41 before first dose; risk difference [RD] dose2 0·08% [95% CI -0·01 to 0·18], p=0·044) and fever (104 after second dose vs 77 before first dose; RD dose2 0·13% [0·00 to 0·27], p=0·022) after the second dose. Among the 36 209 12-17-year-olds, there were increased risks of arthralgia (69 after second dose vs 48 before first dose; RD dose2 0·06% [-0·00 to 0·12], p=0·026), chills (58 after second dose vs 40 before first dose; RD dose2 0·05% [-0·00 to 0·11], p=0·034), and myalgia (96 after second dose vs 73 before first dose; RD dose2 0·06% [-0·01 to 0·14], p=0·038) after the second dose. Although the overall incidence was low, there was an increased risk of myocarditis in males aged 12-17 years after the second dose (five after second dose vs zero before first dose; RD dose2 0·03% [0·01 to 0·07], p=0·013), with median age being 15 years (IQR 14 to 16)., Interpretation: Overall, this data suggests that vaccination with BNT162b2 in the paediatric population is generally safe and well-tolerated. Further research is warranted to investigate the basis for the increased risk of myocarditis in adolescent males. Additionally, further studies are needed to confirm whether the findings in our study population apply to the whole vaccinated paediatric population., Funding: nference., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RPM, MJMN, PJL, GD, AJV, and VS are employees of nference and have financial interests in the company and in the successful application of this research. VS is an employee of Anumana and has financial interests in these companies and in the successful application of this research. JCO has received small grants from nference, and personal consulting fees from Bates College and Elsevier, outside of the submitted work. ADB is supported by grants from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID; grants AI110173 and AI120698), Amfar (109593), and Mayo Clinic (HH Shieckh Khalifa Bib Zayed Al-Nahyan Named Professorship of Infectious Diseases); is a paid consultant for AbbVie, Gilead, Freedom Tunnel, PineTree Therapeutics, Primmune, Immunome, MarPam, Rion, Symbiosis, NexImmune, and Flambeau Diagnostics; is a paid member of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board for Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Equilium, CSL Behring, and Excision Biotherapeutics; has received fees for speaking for Reach MD, Peer Voice, and Medscape; owns equity for scientific advisory work in Tier 1 Bio, Zentalis, Rion, and nference; is founder and President of Splissen therapeutics; and a Member of the Board of Attivare. ERL is supported by grants to the institution from the NIAID (AI 144301-01) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 75D30120C07725-01). DNO declares no competing interests. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In a cohort of 483 high-risk patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for COVID-19, 2 patients (0.4%) required hospitalization by day 30. Four patients (0.8%) experienced rebound of symptoms, which were generally mild, at a median of 9 days after treatment, and all resolved without additional COVID-19-directed therapy., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. R. R. R. declares grants/contracts with Roche, Regeneron, Gilead, and nference; consulting fees from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline; and is on Data Safety Monitoring/Advisory Board for Novartis. J. C. O. reports grants paid to their institution and unrelated to this work from MITRE Corporation and nference; personal consulting fees from Bates College; and a leadership or fiduciary role on the COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel and UTI Treatment Guideline Panel for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine breakthrough infections globally mandated the characterization of the immuno-evasive features of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we systematically analyzed 2.13 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes from 188 countries/territories (up to June 2021) and performed whole-genome viral sequencing from 102 COVID-19 patients, including 43 vaccine breakthrough infections. We identified 92 Spike protein mutations that increased in prevalence during at least one surge in SARS-CoV-2 test positivity in any country over a 3-month window. Deletions in the Spike protein N-terminal domain were highly enriched for these 'surge-associated mutations' (Odds Ratio = 14.19, 95% CI 6.15-32.75, p value = 3.41 × 10 -10 ). Based on a longitudinal analysis of mutational prevalence globally, we found an expanding repertoire of Spike protein deletions proximal to an antigenic supersite in the N-terminal domain that may be one of the key contributors to the evolution of highly transmissible variants. Finally, we generated clinically annotated SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequences from 102 patients and identified 107 unique mutations, including 78 substitutions and 29 deletions. In five patients, we identified distinct deletions between residues 85-90, which reside within a linear B cell epitope. Deletions in this region arose contemporaneously on a diverse background of variants across the globe since December 2020. Overall, our findings based on genomic-epidemiology and clinical surveillance suggest that the genomic deletion of dispensable antigenic regions in SARS-CoV-2 may contribute to the evasion of immune responses and the evolution of highly transmissible variants., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

This article aims to describe the clinical manifestations and management of COVID-19 in patients with primary and secondary B cell deficient states. We describe the epidemiologic and clinical features as well as unique management paradigm including isolation precautions with COVID-19. We then focus upon primary and secondary preventive approaches including vaccination and pre- as well as post-exposure prophylaxis. Further, we elaborate upon the important disease specific risk factors in these patients and the need to conduct prospective clinical trials to develop individualized management strategies in this population., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Patients with defects in humoral immune system are associated with poor prognosis with COVID-19. These defects affect short- and long-term anti SARS-CoV-2 immunity as well as vaccine responses. There is also a risk of emergence of SARS-CoV-2 genomic variants in these patients, hence consideration of combination treatment regimens, including immuno-modulation and prolonged antiviral treatment may be needed and likely be better defined through dedicated prospective clinical trials., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We observed a higher rate of blood-culture contamination during the COVID-19 pandemic at our institution compared to a prepandemic period. Given the potential implications of blood contamination in antibiotic and diagnostic test utilization as well as added cost, it is imperative to continue efforts to minimize these episodes during the pandemic.

Background: COVID-19 is a multi-system disorder with high variability in clinical outcomes among patients who are admitted to hospital. Although some cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-6 are believed to be associated with severity, there are no early biomarkers that can reliably predict patients who are more likely to have adverse outcomes. Thus, it is crucial to discover predictive markers of serious complications., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed samples from 455 participants with COVID-19 who had had a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result between April 14, 2020, and Dec 1, 2020 and who had visited one of three Mayo Clinic sites in the USA (Minnesota, Arizona, or Florida) in the same period. These participants were assigned to three subgroups depending on disease severity as defined by the WHO ordinal scale of clinical improvement (outpatient, severe, or critical). Our control cohort comprised of 182 anonymised age-matched and sex-matched plasma samples that were available from the Mayo Clinic Biorepository and banked before the COVID-19 pandemic. We did a deep profiling of circulatory cytokines and other proteins, lipids, and metabolites from both cohorts. Most patient samples were collected before, or around the time of, hospital admission, representing ideal samples for predictive biomarker discovery. We used proximity extension assays to quantify cytokines and circulatory proteins and tandem mass spectrometry to measure lipids and metabolites. Biomarker discovery was done by applying an AutoGluon-tabular classifier to a multiomics dataset, producing a stacked ensemble of cutting-edge machine learning algorithms. Global proteomics and glycoproteomics on a subset of patient samples with matched pre-COVID-19 plasma samples was also done., Findings: We quantified 1463 cytokines and circulatory proteins, along with 902 lipids and 1018 metabolites. By developing a machine-learning-based prediction model, a set of 102 biomarkers, which predicted severe and clinical COVID-19 outcomes better than the traditional set of cytokines, were discovered. These predictive biomarkers included several novel cytokines and other proteins, lipids, and metabolites. For example, altered amounts of C-type lectin domain family 6 member A (CLEC6A), ether phosphatidylethanolamine (P-18:1/18:1), and 2-hydroxydecanoate, as reported here, have not previously been associated with severity in COVID-19. Patient samples with matched pre-COVID-19 plasma samples showed similar trends in muti-omics signatures along with differences in glycoproteomics profile., Interpretation: A multiomic molecular signature in the plasma of patients with COVID-19 before being admitted to hospital can be exploited to predict a more severe course of disease. Machine learning approaches can be applied to highly complex and multidimensional profiling data to reveal novel signatures of clinical use. The absence of validation in an independent cohort remains a major limitation of the study., Funding: Eric and Wendy Schmidt., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PK-M, TH, and AJV are employees of nference. JCO receives grants from nference and personal fees from Elsevier and Bates College, outside the submitted work. ADB is supported by grants from NIAID (AI110173 and AI120698), Amfar (109593), and Mayo Clinic (HH Shieck Khalifa Bib Zayed Al-Nahyan Named Professorship of Infectious Diseases). ADB is a paid consultant for AbbVie, Gilead, Freedom Tunnel, Pinetree Therapeutics, Primmune, Immunome, MarPam, Rion, and Flambeau Diagnostics; is a paid member of the DSMB for Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Equilium, and Excision Biotherapeutics; has received fees for speaking for Reach MD, Peer Voice, and Medscape; owns equity for scientific advisory work in Zentalis Rion and nference; and is founder and President of Splissen Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the rate of household, community, occupational, and travel-related COVID-19 infections among health care personnel (HCP)., Methods: In a retrospective cohort study of 3694 HCP with COVID-19 infections from July 5 to December 19, 2020, we analyzed infection source data and rates, compared with local and state infection rates, and performed a correlation analysis., Results: Household (27.1%) and community (15.6%) exposures were the most common sources of infection. Occupational exposures accounted for 3.55% of HCP infections. Unattributable infections (no known exposure source) accounted for 53.1% and correlated with community rather than occupational exposure ( R = 0.99 vs 0.78, P < 0.01)., Conclusions: COVID-19 infections in this large HCP cohort correlated closely with infection rates in the community. The low incidence of occupational infections supports the effectiveness of institutional infection prevention and control measures., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.)

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy's efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To investigate the radiographic resolution of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) examinations in patients diagnosed with acute PE while hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to understand the mid-term and long-term implications of anticoagulation therapy., Methods: We identified patients with acute PE per CECT and at least one follow-up CECT from March 11, 2020, to May 27, 2021, using a prospective registry of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection receiving care within a multicenter Health System. Initial and follow-up CECT examinations were reviewed independently by two radiologists to evaluate for PE resolution. The Modified Miller Score was used to assess for thrombus burden at diagnosis and on follow-up., Results: Of the 6070 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection, 5.7% (348/6070) were diagnosed with acute PE and 13.5% (47/348) had a follow-up CECT examination. The mean ± standard deviation time to follow-up imaging was 44 ± 48 days (range, 3-161 days). Of 47 patients, 47 (72.3%) had radiographic resolution of PE, with a mean time to follow-up of 48 ± 43 days (range, 6-239 days). All patients received anticoagulation monotherapy for a mean of 149 ± 95 days and this included apixaban (63.8%), warfarin (12.8%), and rivaroxaban (8.5%), among others. The mean Modified Miller Score at PE diagnosis and follow-up was 4.8 ± 4.2 (range, 1-14) and 1.4 ± 3.3 (range, 0-16; P < .0001), respectively. Nine patients (19%) died at a mean of 13 ± 8 days after follow-up CECT (range, 1-27 days) and at a mean of 28 ± 16 days after admission (range, 11-68 days). Seen of the nine deaths (78%) deaths were associated with progression of COVID-19 pneumonia., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have a clinically apparent 5.7% rate of developing PE. In patients with follow-up imaging, 72.3% had radiographic thrombus resolution at a mean of 44 days while on anticoagulation. Prospective studies of the natural history of PEs with COVID-19 that include systematic follow-up imaging are warranted to help guide anticoagulation recommendations., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood., Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021., Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273., Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose., Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

Background: mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are safe and effective, but increasing reports of breakthrough infections highlight the need to vigilantly monitor and compare the effectiveness of these vaccines., Methods: We retrospectively compared protection against symptomatic infection conferred by mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 at Mayo Clinic sites from December 2020 to September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) and to compare the odds of symptomatic infection after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2, while adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geography, comorbidities, and calendar time of vaccination and testing., Findings: Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VE mRNA-1273 : 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VE BNT162b2 : 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VE mRNA-1273 : 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VE BNT162b2 : 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VE mRNA-1273 : 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VE BNT162b2 : 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%). Adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, time of vaccination, and time of testing, the odds of experiencing a symptomatic breakthrough infection were lower after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 than with BNT162b2 (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55-0.67)., Conclusions: Both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 strongly protect against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is imperative to continue monitoring and comparing available vaccines over time and with respect to emerging variants to inform public and global health decisions., Funding: This study was funded by nference., Competing Interests: A.P., P.J.L., E.S., M.J.M.N., J.C.O., A.J.V., and V.S. are employees of nference and have financial interests in the company. nference is collaborating or has collaborated with Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen, and other bio-pharmaceutical companies on data science initiatives unrelated to this study. These collaborations had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. J.C.O. receives personal fees from Elsevier and Bates College and receives small grants from nference, Inc., outside the submitted work. A.D.B. is supported by grants from NIAID (grants AI110173 and AI120698), Amfar (no. 109593), and Mayo Clinic (HH Shieck Khalifa Bib Zayed Al-Nahyan Named Professorship of Infectious Diseases). A.D.B. is a paid consultant for Abbvie, Gilead, Freedom Tunnel, Pinetree Therapeutics, Primmune, Immunome, and Flambeau Diagnostics; is a paid member of the DSMB for Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Equilium, and Excision Biotherapeutics; has received fees for speaking for Reach MD and Medscape; owns equity for scientific advisory work in Zentalis and nference; and is founder and President of Splissen Therapeutics. M.D.S. received grant funding from Pfizer via Duke University for a vaccine side effect registry. J.C.O., A.V., M.D.S., J.E.G., L.L.S., H.L.G., W.K., J.H., and A.D.B. are employees of the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic may stand to gain financially from the successful outcome of the research. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Objective: To evaluate the performance of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) integrated risk score for COVID-19 positive outpatients to predict 30-day risk of hospitalization., Patients and Methods: A retrospective observational study of 67 470 patients with COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test between March 12, 2020 and February 8, 2021. Risk scores were calculated based on data in the chart at the time of the incident infection., Results: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score consisted of 13 components included age, sex, chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, end stage liver disease, end stage renal disease, hypertension, immune compromised, nursing home resident, and pregnant. Univariate analysis showed all components, except pregnancy, have significant ( P  < .001) association with admission. The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score showed a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under Curve (AUC) of 0.837 for the prediction of admission for this large cohort of COVID-19 positive patients., Conclusion: The Mayo Clinic COVID-19 risk score is a simple score that is easily integrated into the EHR with excellent predictive performance for severe COVID-19. It can be leveraged to stratify risk for severe COVID-19 at initial contact, when considering therapeutics or in the allocation of vaccine supply.

Objective: We assessed the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with that in a matched cohort with similar cardiovascular risk factors and the effects of DVT and PE on the hospital course., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalized from March 11, 2020 to September 4, 2020. The patients were randomly matched in a 1:1 ratio by age, sex, hospital of admission, smoking history, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease with a cohort of patients without COVID-19. The primary end point was the incidence of DVT/PE and the odds of developing DVT/PE using a conditional logistic regression model. The secondary end point was the hospitalization outcomes for COVID-19 patients with and without DVT/PE, including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU stay, and length of hospitalization (LOH). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify the variables associated with mortality, ICU admission, discharge disposition, ICU duration, and LOH., Results: A total of 13,310 patients had tested positive for COVID-19, 915 of whom (6.9%) had been hospitalized across our multisite health care system. The mean age of the hospitalized patients was 60.8 ± 17.0 years, and 396 (43.3%) were women. Of the 915 patients, 82 (9.0%) had had a diagnosis of DVT/PE confirmed by ultrasound examination of the extremities and/or computed tomography angiography of the chest. The odds of presenting with DVT/PE in the setting of COVID-19 infection was greater than that without COVID-19 infection (0.6% [5 of 915] vs 9.0% [82 of 915]; odds ratio [OR], 18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-51.2; P < .001). The vascular risk factors were not different between the COVID-19 patients with and without DVT/PE. Mortality (P = .02), the need for ICU stay (P < .001), duration of ICU stay (P < .001), and LOH (P < .001) were greater in the DVT/PE cohort than in the cohort without DVT/PE. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the hemoglobin (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95; P = .04) and D-dimer (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.33-1.56; P = .03) levels were associated with higher mortality. Higher activated partial thromboplastin times (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.00-1.12; P = .03) and higher interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; P = .05) were associated with a greater risk of ICU admission. IL-6 (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .05) was associated with a greater risk of rehabilitation placement after discharge. On multivariable gamma regression analysis, hemoglobin (coefficient, -3.0; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08; P = .005) was associated with a prolonged ICU stay, and the activated partial thromboplastin time (coefficient, 2.0; 95% CI, 0.003-0.006; P = .05), international normalized ratio (coefficient, -3.2; 95% CI, 0.06-0.19; P = .002) and IL-6 (coefficient, 2.4; 95% CI, 0.0011-0.0027; P = .02) were associated with a prolonged LOH., Conclusions: A significantly greater incidence of DVT/PE occurred in hospitalized COVID-19-positive patients compared with a non-COVID-19 cohort matched for cardiovascular risk factors. Patients affected by DVT/PE were more likely to experience greater mortality, to require ICU admission, and experience prolonged ICU stays and LOH compared with COVID-19-positive patients without DVT/PE. Advancements in DVT/PE prevention are needed for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Continuous assessment of the effectiveness and safety of the US Food and Drug Administration-authorized SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to amplify transparency, build public trust, and ultimately improve overall health outcomes., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson Ad26.COV2.S vaccine for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used large-scale longitudinal curation of electronic health records from the multistate Mayo Clinic Health System (Minnesota, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, and Iowa) to identify vaccinated and unvaccinated adults between February 27 and July 22, 2021. The unvaccinated cohort was matched on a propensity score derived from age, sex, zip code, race, ethnicity, and previous number of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction tests. The final study cohort consisted of 8889 patients in the vaccinated group and 88 898 unvaccinated matched patients., Exposure: Single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine., Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated control cohorts, measured by SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing., Results: The study was composed of 8889 vaccinated patients (4491 men [50.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.4 [16.9] years) and 88 898 unvaccinated patients (44 748 men [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [16.7] years). The incidence rate ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated control cohorts was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.20-0.34) (60 of 8889 vaccinated patients vs 2236 of 88 898 unvaccinated individuals), which corresponds to an effectiveness of 73.6% (95% CI, 65.9%-79.9%) and a 3.73-fold reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections., Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings are consistent with the clinical trial-reported efficacy of Ad26.COV2.S and the first retrospective analysis, suggesting that the vaccine is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the spread of variants such as Alpha or Delta that were not present in the original studies, and reaffirm the urgent need to continue mass vaccination efforts globally.

Objective: To assess the association of COVID-19 vaccines and non-COVID-19 vaccines with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST)., Materials and Method: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 771,805 vaccination events across 266,094 patients in the Mayo Clinic Health System between 01/01/2017 and 03/15/2021. The primary outcome was a positive diagnosis of CVST, identified either by the presence of a corresponding ICD code or by an NLP algorithm which detected positive diagnosis of CVST within free-text clinical notes. For each vaccine we calculated the relative risk by dividing the incidence of CVST in the 30 days following vaccination to that in the 30 days preceding vaccination., Results: We identified vaccination events for all FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines including Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 94,818 doses), Moderna (n = 36,350 doses) and Johnson & Johnson - J&J (n = 1,745 doses). We also identified vaccinations events for 10 common FDA-approved non-COVID-19 vaccines (n = 771,805 doses). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence rate of CVST in 30-days before and after vaccination for any vaccine in this population. We further found the baseline CVST incidence in the study population between 2017 and 2021 to be 45 to 98 per million patient years., Conclusions: This real-world evidence-based study finds that CVST is rare and is not significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccination in our patient cohort. Limitations include the rarity of CVST in our dataset, a relatively small number of J&J COVID-19 vaccination events, and the use of a population drawn from recipients of a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test in a single health system., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest JCO receives personal fees from Elsevier and Bates College, and receives small grants from nference, Inc, outside the submitted work. ADB is a consultant for Abbvie, is on scientific advisory boards for nference and Zentalis, and is founder and President of Splissen therapeutics. nference collaborates with Janssen and other bio-pharmaceutical companies on data science initiatives unrelated to this study. These collaborations had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. JRH, JCO, GJG, AWW, AV, MDS, and ADB are employees of the Mayo Clinic. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.

Background: COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has strikingly heterogeneous clinical manifestations, with most individuals contracting mild disease but a substantial minority experiencing fulminant cardiopulmonary symptoms or death. The clinical covariates and the laboratory tests performed on a patient provide robust statistics to guide clinical treatment. Deep learning approaches on a data set of this nature enable patient stratification and provide methods to guide clinical treatment., Objective: Here, we report on the development and prospective validation of a state-of-the-art machine learning model to provide mortality prediction shortly after confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Mayo Clinic patient population., Methods: We retrospectively constructed one of the largest reported and most geographically diverse laboratory information system and electronic health record of COVID-19 data sets in the published literature, which included 11,807 patients residing in 41 states of the United States of America and treated at medical sites across 5 states in 3 time zones. Traditional machine learning models were evaluated independently as well as in a stacked learner approach by using AutoGluon, and various recurrent neural network architectures were considered. The traditional machine learning models were implemented using the AutoGluon-Tabular framework, whereas the recurrent neural networks utilized the TensorFlow Keras framework. We trained these models to operate solely using routine laboratory measurements and clinical covariates available within 72 hours of a patient's first positive COVID-19 nucleic acid test result., Results: The GRU-D recurrent neural network achieved peak cross-validation performance with 0.938 (SE 0.004) as the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. This model retained strong performance by reducing the follow-up time to 12 hours (0.916 [SE 0.005] AUROC), and the leave-one-out feature importance analysis indicated that the most independently valuable features were age, Charlson comorbidity index, minimum oxygen saturation, fibrinogen level, and serum iron level. In the prospective testing cohort, this model provided an AUROC of 0.901 and a statistically significant difference in survival (P<.001, hazard ratio for those predicted to survive, 95% CI 0.043-0.106)., Conclusions: Our deep learning approach using GRU-D provides an alert system to flag mortality for COVID-19-positive patients by using clinical covariates and laboratory values within a 72-hour window after the first positive nucleic acid test result., (©Saranya Sankaranarayanan, Jagadheshwar Balan, Jesse R Walsh, Yanhong Wu, Sara Minnich, Amy Piazza, Collin Osborne, Gavin R Oliver, Jessica Lesko, Kathy L Bates, Kia Khezeli, Darci R Block, Margaret DiGuardo, Justin Kreuter, John C O’Horo, John Kalantari, Eric W Klee, Mohamed E Salama, Benjamin Kipp, William G Morice, Garrett Jenkinson. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 28.09.2021.)

Background: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign unfolds, it is important to continuously assess the real-world safety of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized vaccines. Curation of large-scale electronic health records (EHRs) enables near-real-time safety evaluations that were not previously possible., Methods: In this retrospective study, we deployed deep neural networks over a large EHR system to automatically curate the adverse effects mentioned by physicians in over 1.2 million clinical notes between December 1, 2020 and April 20, 2021. We compared notes from 68,266 individuals who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 (n = 51,795) or mRNA-1273 (n = 16,471) to notes from 68,266 unvaccinated individuals who were matched by demographic, geographic, and clinical features., Findings: Individuals vaccinated with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 had a higher rate of return to the clinic, but not the emergency department, after both doses compared to unvaccinated controls. The most frequently documented adverse effects within 7 days of each vaccine dose included myalgia, headache, and fatigue, but the rates of EHR documentation for each side effect were remarkably low compared to those derived from active solicitation during clinical trials. Severe events, including anaphylaxis, facial paralysis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, were rare and occurred at similar frequencies in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals., Conclusions: This analysis of vaccine-related adverse effects from over 1.2 million EHR notes of more than 130,000 individuals reaffirms the safety and tolerability of the FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in practice., Funding: This study was funded by nference., Competing Interests: R.M., P.L., E.S., A.P., S.A., C.P., V.A., A.J.V., P.A., A.R., C.C., K.C., D.D., N.K., E.R., G.B., A.M., T.W., and V.S. are employees of nference and have financial interests in the company and in the successful application of this research. R.M. is a student at Boston University School of Medicine. P.L. is a student at Harvard Medical School. J.C.O. receives personal fees from Elsevier and Bates College and small grants from nference outside the submitted work. A.D.B. is a consultant for AbbVie, is on scientific advisory boards for nference and Zentalis, and is founder and president of Splissen Therapeutics. J.H., J.C.O., G.J.G., A.W.W., A.V., M.D.S., and A.D.B. are employees of the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic may stand to gain financially from the successful outcome of the research. nference collaborates with Janssen and other bio-pharmaceutical companies on data science initiatives unrelated to this study. These collaborations had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic conflict-of-interest policies., (© 2021 Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Two US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), have demonstrated high efficacy in large phase 3 randomized clinical trials. It is important to assess their effectiveness in a real-world setting., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 136,532 individuals in the Mayo Clinic health system (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) with PCR testing data between December 1, 2020 and April 20, 2021. We compared clinical outcomes for a vaccinated cohort of 68,266 individuals who received at least one dose of either vaccine (n BNT162b2  = 51,795; n mRNA-1273  = 16,471) and an unvaccinated control cohort of 68,266 individuals propensity matched based on relevant demographic, clinical, and geographic features. We estimated real-world vaccine effectiveness by comparing incidence rates of positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR testing and COVID-19-associated hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission starting 7 days after the second vaccine dose., Findings: The real-world vaccine effectiveness of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.4%-89.1%) for BNT162b2 and 93.3% (95% CI: 85.7%-97.4%) for mRNA-1273. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 88.8% (95% CI: 75.5%-95.7%) and 86.0% (95% CI: 71.6%-93.9%) effective in preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization. Both vaccines were 100% effective (95% CI BNT162b2 : 51.4%-100%; 95% CI mRNA-1273 : 43.3%-100%) in preventing COVID-19-associated ICU admission., Conclusions: BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are effective in a real-world setting and are associated with reduced rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and decreased burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system., Funding: This study was funded by nference., Competing Interests: C.P., P.L., A.P., V.A., A.V., M.J.M.N., and V.S. are employees of nference and have financial interests in the company and in the successful application of this research. J.C.O. receives personal fees from Elsevier and Bates College and small grants from nference, Inc., outside of the submitted work. A.D.B. is a consultant for Abbvie, is on scientific advisory boards for nference and Zentalis, and is founder and President of Splissen Therapeutics. J.H., J.C.O., M.D.S., A.V., and A.D.B. are employees of the Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic may stand to gain financially from the successful outcome of the research. nference collaborates with Janssen and other bio-pharmaceutical companies on data science initiatives unrelated to this study. These collaborations had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This research has been reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest Review Board and is being conducted in compliance with Mayo Clinic Conflict of Interest policies., (© 2021 Elsevier Inc.)

Brain imaging studies of patients with COVID-19 show evidence of macro- and microhemorrhagic lesions, multifocal white matter hyperintensities, and lesions consistent with posterior reversible leukoencephalopathy. Imaging studies, however, are subject to selection bias, and prospective studies are challenging to scale. Here, we evaluated whether serum neurofilament light chain (NFL), a neuroaxonal injury marker, could predict the extent of neuronal damage in a cohort of 142 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. NFL was elevated in the serum of patients with COVID-19 compared to healthy controls, including those without overt neurological manifestations. Higher NFL serum concentrations were associated with worse clinical outcomes. In 100 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir, a trend toward lower NFL serum concentrations was observed. These data suggest that patients with COVID-19 may experience neuroaxonal injury and may be at risk for long-term neurological sequelae. Neuroaxonal injury should be considered as an outcome in acute pharmacotherapeutic trials for COVID-19., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).)

SARS-CoV-2 infection has become a major public health burden and affects many organs including lungs, kidneys, the liver, and the brain. Although the virus is readily detected and diagnosed using nasopharyngeal swabs by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), detection of its presence in body fluids is fraught with difficulties. A number of published studies have failed to detect viral RNA by RT-PCR methods in urine. Although microbial identification in clinical microbiology using mass spectrometry is undertaken after culture, here we undertook a mass spectrometry-based approach that employed an enrichment step to capture and detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein directly from urine of COVID-19 patients without any culture. We detected SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein-derived peptides from 13 out of 39 urine samples. Further, a subset of COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative urine samples validated by mass spectrometry were used for the quantitative proteomics analysis. Proteins with increased abundance in urine of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were enriched in the acute phase response, regulation of complement system, and immune response. Notably, a number of renal proteins such as podocin (NPHS2), an amino acid transporter (SLC36A2), and sodium/glucose cotransporter 5 (SLC5A10), which are intimately involved in normal kidney function, were decreased in the urine of COVID-19 patients. Overall, the detection of viral antigens in urine using mass spectrometry and alterations of the urinary proteome could provide insights into understanding the pathogenesis of COVID-19.

Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787). We find that COVID-19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality-rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e-52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e-8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e-5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow-up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID-19 patients., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Medical Virology Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Since its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored, including corticosteroids. Preliminary results of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging; however, the role of corticosteroids remains controversial., Research Question: What is the impact of corticosteroids in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and viral shedding in COVID-19 patients?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic review of literature on corticosteroids and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature through July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroids with a comparative group., Results: A total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 patients were identified. Corticosteroid use was reported widely in mechanically ventilated patients (35.3%), ICU patients (51.3%), and severe COVID-19 patients (40%). Corticosteroids showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0006); however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted among high-dose or low-dose corticosteroid regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose corticosteroids do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids regimens., Interpretation: Our results showed evidence of mortality benefit in severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids are used widely in COVID-19 patients worldwide, and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for corticosteroids., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical studies are ongoing to assess whether existing vaccines may afford protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection through trained immunity. In this exploratory study, we analyze immunization records from 137,037 individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. We find that polio, Haemophilus influenzae type-B (HIB), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), Varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), Geriatric Flu, and hepatitis A/hepatitis B (HepA-HepB) vaccines administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years are associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, even after adjusting for geographic SARS-CoV-2 incidence and testing rates, demographics, comorbidities, and number of other vaccinations. Furthermore, age, race/ethnicity, and blood group stratified analyses reveal significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 rate among black individuals who have taken the PCV13 vaccine, with relative risk of 0.45 at the 5 year time horizon (n: 653, 95% CI (0.32, 0.64), p-value: 6.9e-05). Overall, this study identifies existing approved vaccines which can be promising candidates for pre-clinical research and Randomized Clinical Trials towards combating COVID-19.

This study aimed to determine if the crossing point of the initial positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test correlated with patient demographics, subsequent hospitalization, or duration of positivity. Seventy-three patients with two or more positive PCR tests had a median time of 23 days to two consecutive negative results., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose related to the work in this study., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to investigate body mass index, multi-morbidity, and COVID-19 Risk Score as predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes., Patients: Patients from this study are from a well-characterized patient cohort collected at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2020 and May 23, 2020; with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis defined as a positive result on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays from nasopharyngeal swab specimens., Measures: Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The data included: date of birth, gender, ethnicity, race, marital status, medications (active COVID-19 agents), weight and height (from which the Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated, history of smoking, and comorbid conditions to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) multi-morbidity score. An additional COVID-19 Risk Score was also included. Outcomes included hospital admission, ICU admission, and death., Results: Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the impact on mortality or hospital admission. Age, sex, and race (white/Latino, white/non-Latino, other, did not disclose) were adjusted for in the model. Patients with higher COVID-19 Risk Scores had a significantly higher likelihood of being at least admitted to the hospital (HR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.50; P  < .001), or experiencing death or inpatient admission (includes ICU admissions) (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.42; P  = .028). Age was the only statistically significant demographic predictor, but obesity was not a significant predictor of any of the outcomes., Conclusion: Age and COVID-19 Risk Scores were significant predictors of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Further work should examine the properties of the COVID-19 Risk Factors Scale.

Objective: To describe the process and outcome of creating a patient cohort in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the process of and predict the outcomes of COVID-19., Patients and Methods: A total of 1169 adults aged 18 years of age or older who tested positive in Mayo Clinic Rochester or the Mayo Clinic Midwest Health System between January 1 and May 23 of 2020., Results: Patients were on average 43.9 years of age and 50.7% were female. Most patients were white (69.0%), and Blacks (23.4%) and Asians (5.8%) were also represented in larger numbers. Hispanics represented 16.3% of the sample. Just under half of patients were married (48.4%). Common comorbid conditions included: cardiovascular diseases (25.1%), dyslipidemia (16.0%), diabetes mellitus (11.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.6%), asthma (7.5%), and cancer (5.1%). All other comorbid conditions were less the 5% in prevalence. Data on 3 comorbidity indices are also available including the: DHHS multi-morbidity score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Risk Factor Score., Conclusion: In addition to managing the ever raging pandemic and growing death rates, it is equally important that we develop adequate resources for the investigation and understanding of COVID-19-related predictors and outcomes.

In a single-center review of antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patients, 10% of patients received antimicrobials, and inpatients encounters had the highest rate and spectrum of prescribing. Prescribing rate, spectrum, and duration appeared to increase with disease severity in inpatients. Antimicrobial prescribing in patients managed in ambulatory encounters was less common.

Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much-needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Antispike monoclonal antibodies are recommended for early treatment of high-risk persons with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical outcomes of their use during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Omicron wave are limited. Methods This is a descriptive retrospective study of high-risk adult patients who received treatment with sotrovimab (January 1–March 20, 2022) or bebtelovimab (March 21–April 30, 2022). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe outcome within 30 days after receiving antispike-neutralizing monoclonal antibody infusion. Results A total of 3872 high-risk patients (median age, 62.7 years; 41.1% male) with mild to moderate COVID-19 received sotrovimab (n = 2182) or bebtelovimab (n = 1690). Among sotrovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were an immunosuppressed condition (46.7%), hypertension (38.2%), and diabetes (21.2%). The rates of severe outcome, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality were 2.2%, 1.0%, and 0.4%, respectively, after sotrovimab infusion. Among bebtelovimab-treated patients, the most common comorbidities were hypertension (42.7%), diabetes (17.1%), and an immunosuppressed condition (17.0%). The rates of severe disease, ICU admission, and mortality were 1.3%, 0.5%, and 0.2%, respectively, after bebtelovimab infusion. Older age, immunosuppressed status, and several comorbidities were associated with severe disease progression, while COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower risk. No anaphylaxis was reported during monoclonal antibody infusion. Conclusions This real-world analysis of a large cohort of high-risk patients demonstrates low rates of severe disease after treatment with sotrovimab during the era dominated by Omicron B.1.1.529 and after treatment with bebtelovimab during the era dominated by BA.2 and Omicron subvariants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at high‐risk for severe infection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Anti‐spike monoclonal antibodies are currently utilized under emergency use authorization to prevent hospitalization in high‐risk individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), including SOTRs. However, clinical data for bebtelovimab, the sole currently available anti‐spike monoclonal antibody for COVID‐19, is limited. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult SOTRs diagnosed with mild‐to‐moderate COVID‐19 from January 2022 through May 2022 who received either bebtelovimab or sotrovimab. The primary outcome was COVID‐19‐related hospitalization within 30 days of COVID‐19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact test. Results: Among 361 SOTRs, 92 (25.5%) received bebtelovimab and 269 (74.5%) received sotrovimab. The most common organ transplant was a kidney (42.4%). SOTRs who received bebtelovimab had a higher proportion who had received a booster SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine dose and had received their last vaccination dose more recently. Eleven (3.0%) SOTRs were hospitalized, and rates of hospitalization were similar between monoclonal antibody groups (3.3% versus 3.0%; p >.99). Three patients required admission to an intensive care unit, all of who received sotrovimab. Four (1.1%) patients died within 30 days of COVID‐19 diagnosis, two from each group. Conclusions: SOTRs with mild‐to‐moderate COVID‐19 who received bebtelovimab had similar rates of COVID‐19‐related hospitalization as those who received sotrovimab. While differences in vaccination rates and viral subvariants could act as confounders, bebtelovimab appears to be of similar effectiveness as sotrovimab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antispike monoclonal antibody treatment of 180 B-cell-depleted patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in good outcomes overall, with only 12.2% progressing to severe disease, 9.4% requiring hospitalization, 0.6% requiring mechanical ventilation, no deaths within 30 days, and 1.8% developing persistent COVID-19. Antispike monoclonal antibodies appear effective in this immunocompromised population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for emergency use treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients at high risk for developing severe disease or hospitalization. Their safety and efficacy have not been specifically evaluated in solid organ transplant recipients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed solid organ transplant recipients who received monoclonal antibody infusion for COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic sites through January 23, 2021. Outcomes included emergency department visit, hospitalization, mortality, and allograft rejection. Results Seventy-three patients were treated, most commonly with bamlanivimab (75.3%). The median age was 59 years, 63% were male, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 5. Transplant type included 41 kidney (56.2%), 13 liver (17.8%), 11 heart (15.1%), 4 kidney-pancreas (5.5%), 2 lung (2.7%), 1 heart-liver, and 1 pancreas. Eleven (15.1%) patients had an emergency department visit within 28 days of infusion, including 9 (12.3%) who were hospitalized for a median of 4 days. One patient required intensive care unit admission for a nonrespiratory complication. No patients required mechanical ventilation, died, or experienced rejection. Ten adverse events occurred, with 1 seeking medical evaluation. Hypertension was associated with hospital admission (P  < .05), while other baseline characteristics were similar. The median time from symptom onset to antibody administration was 4 days in nonhospitalized patients compared with 6 days among hospitalized patients (P  < .05). Conclusions Monoclonal antibody treatment has favorable outcomes with minimal adverse effects in solid organ transplant recipients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Earlier administration of monoclonal antibody therapy appears to be more efficacious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected millions of individuals and has claimed hundreds of thousands of human lives worldwide. Patients with underlying cardiovascular conditions are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 patients have high incidence of cardiovascular complications such as acute cardiac injury, arrhythmias, heart failure, and thromboembolism. The disease has no approved proven effective therapy and hence repurposing of existing approved drugs has been considered as the fastest treatment approach. Statins have been shown to exhibit lipid lowering dependent and independent cardiovascular protective effects as well as favorable effects in various other pathophysiological states. These beneficial properties of statins are a result of their multiple pleotropic effects that include, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antithrombotic and antimicrobial properties. In this review, we provide a comprehensive description of the mechanisms of the pleotropic effects of statins, the relevant pre-clinical and clinical data pertinent to their role in infections and acute lung injury, the possible cardiovascular benefits of statins in COVID-19, and the implications of the therapeutic potential of statins in COVID-19 disease. We conclude with the rationale for conducting randomized controlled trials of statins in COVID-19 disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has strikingly heterogeneous clinical manifestations with most individuals contracting mild disease but a substantial minority experiencing fulminant cardiopulmonary symptoms or death. The clinical covariates and the lab tests performed on a patient provide robust statistics to guide clinical treatment. Deep learning approaches on a dataset of this nature enable patient stratification and provide methods to guide clinical treatment.Objective: Here we report on the development and prospective validation of a state-of-the-art machine learning model to provide mortality prediction shortly after confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Mayo Clinic patient population.Methods: We retrospectively constructed one of the largest reported and most geographically diverse laboratory information system (LIS) and electronic health record (EHR) COVID-19 datasets in the published literature, which included 11,807 patients with residence in 41 states, treated at medical sites across five states in three time zones. Traditional machine learning models were evaluated independently as well as in a stacked learner approach using AutoGluon, and various recurrent neural network (RNN) architectures were considered. The traditional machine learning models were implemented using the AutoGluon-Tabular framework, whereas the RNNs utilized the tensorflow keras framework. We trained these models to operate solely using routine laboratory measurements and clinical covariates available within 72 hours of a patient's first positive COVID-19 nucleic acid test.Results: The GRU-D recurrent neural network achieved peak cross-validation performance with 0.938±0.004 AUROC. The model retained strong performance when reducing the follow-up time to 12 hours (0.916±0.005 AUROC), and leave-one-out feature importance analysis indicated the most independently valuable features were: age, Charlson score, minimum oxygen saturation, fibrinogen and serum iron level. In the prospective testing cohort this model provides an AUROC of 0.901 and statistically significant difference in survival (P<.001, hazard ratio for those predicted to survive: 95% CI [0.043,0.106]).Conclusions: Our deep learning approach using GRU-D provides an alert system to flag mortality on COVID-19 positive patients, using clinical covariates and lab values within a 72-hour window after the first positive nucleic acid test.Clinicaltrial: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]