Search

Macrolide antibiotics have immunomodulatory properties which may be beneficial in viral infections. However, the precise effects of macrolides on T cell responses to COVID, differences between different macrolides, and synergistic effects with other antibiotics have not been explored.We investigated the effect of antibiotics (amoxicillin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, and combined amoxicillin with clarithromycin) on lymphocyte intracellular cytokine levels and monocyte phagocytosis in healthy volunteer PBMCs stimulated ex vivo with SARS-CoV-2 S1+2 spike protein. A retrospective cohort study was performed on intensive care COVID-19 patients.Co-incubation of clarithromycin with spike protein-stimulated healthy volunteer PBMCs ex vivo resulted in an increase in CD8Clarithromycin has immunomodulatory properties over and above azithromycin. Amoxicillin in addition to clarithromycin is associated with synergistic ex vivo immunomodulatory properties. The potential benefit of clarithromycin in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitis merits further exploration.

Background The FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (bioMérieux) is a rapid multiplex PCR aiming to increase speed and sensitivity in the microbiological diagnosis of pneumonia. This offers potential for improved antimicrobial stewardship and evidence-based antibiotic prescribing. Whether such gains can be realised in practise is uncertain, thus, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to examine this. Methods Adults and children in ICU with suspected hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia were randomized to standard care or a FilmArray Pneumonia Panel PCR test at the point of care supported by an optional prescribing algorithm. Participants were followed for 28 days. FilmArray tests were run retrospectively in the control-arm but results were not provided to treating clinicians. Antimicrobial therapy was adjudged by a committee of blinded, independent microbiologists for ‘activity’ and ‘proportionality’ vs. pathogens detected in each arm regardless of the time and method by which they were found. Clinical cure was not blinded and judged by site PI according to defined clinical parameters. Results Between July 2019 and August 2021, 556 participants were randomized at 13 hospitals; 545 met eligibility criteria; 92 were children and 183 had COVID-19 at enrolment. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between study arms. In the intervention arm 76.5% of participants were judged to have received active and proportionate antibiotics at 24h vs. 55.9% in the control arm (p< 0.001); proportions at 72h were 73.4% and 58.8%, respectively p< 0.001). Site-reported clinical cure of pneumonia at 14 days was 56.7% in the intervention arm and 64.7% in the control arm (95% CI -0.15 to 0.02), with exploratory analyses suggesting site heterogeneity. 28-day mortality was 31.3% in the intervention arm and 28.2% in the control arm (p = 0.098). Median ventilator-free days by Day 21 were 2 days in both study arms. Median ICU length of stay was 14 days in both arms. Conclusion Use of the FilmArray Pneumonia Panel PCR led to a significant increase in the proportion of patients receiving ‘active and proportionate’ antibiotic therapy at 24h. Reasons for lower reported clinical cure, despite better tailored antibiotic use, remain under active analysis. Disclosures Virve Enne, BSc PhD, Biomerieux: Advisor/Consultant|Biomerieux: Advisor/Consultant|Biomerieux: Grant/Research Support|Biomerieux: Grant/Research Support|Inflammatix: Grant/Research Support Juliet High, Masters in Chemistry, Biomerieux: Advisor/Consultant|Biomerieux: Grant/Research Support David Brealey, MBBSPhD, Biomerieux: Honoraria David Livermore, BSc PhD, bioMerieux: Honoraria|bioMerieux: Provision of machines/test kits for INHALE.

IntroductionMany routinely administered treatments lack evidence as to their effectiveness. When treatments lack evidence, patients receive varying care based on the preferences of clinicians. Standard randomised controlled trials are unsuited to comparisons of different routine treatment strategies, and there remains little economic incentive for change.Integrating clinical trial infrastructure into electronic health record systems offers the potential for routine treatment comparisons at scale, through reduced trial costs. To date, embedded trials have automated data collection, participant identification and eligibility screening, but randomisation and consent remain manual and therefore costly tasks.This study will investigate the feasibility of using computer prompts to allow flexible randomisation at the point of clinical decision making. It will compare the effectiveness of two prompt designs through the lens of a candidate research question—comparing liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation practices for critical care patients. It will also explore the acceptability of two consent models for conducting comparative effectiveness research.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a single centre, mixed-methods feasibility study, aiming to recruit 50 patients undergoing elective surgery requiring postoperative critical care admission. Participants will be randomised to either ‘Nudge’ or ‘Preference’ designs of electronic point-of-care randomisation prompt, and liberal or restrictive magnesium supplementation.We will judge feasibility through a combination of study outcomes. The primary outcome will be the proportion of prompts displayed resulting in successful randomisation events (compliance with the allocated magnesium strategy). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the acceptability of both prompt designs to clinicians and ascertain the acceptability of pre-emptive and opt-out consent models to patients.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/LO/0785) and will be published on completion.Trial registration numberNCT05149820.

Purpose To quantify potential heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), of early sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with usual care, and identify patients who have a high probability of lower or higher 90-day mortality according to age, and other identified clusters. Methods Bayesian analysis of 3904 critically ill adult patients expected to receive invasive ventilation > 24 h and enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing early DEX with usual care sedation. Results HTE was assessed according to age and clusters (based on 12 baseline characteristics) using a Bayesian hierarchical models. DEX was associated with lower 90-day mortality compared to usual care in patients > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% credible interval [CrI] 0.68–1.00], with 97.7% probability of reduced mortality across broad categories of illness severity. Conversely, the probability of increased mortality in patients ≤ 65 years was 98.5% (OR 1.26 [95% CrI 1.02–1.56]. Two clusters were identified: cluster 1 (976 patients) mostly operative, and cluster 2 (2346 patients), predominantly non-operative. There was a greater probability of benefit with DEX in cluster 1 (OR 0.86 [95% CrI 0.65–1.14]) across broad categories of age, with 86.4% probability that DEX is more beneficial in cluster 1 than cluster 2. Conclusion In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, early sedation with dexmedetomidine exhibited a high probability of reduced 90-day mortality in older patients regardless of operative or non-operative cluster status. Conversely, a high probability of increased 90-day mortality was observed in younger patients of non-operative status. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06356-8.

BackgroundAntibiotics are extensively prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs), yet little is known about how antibiotic-related decisions are made in this setting. We explored how beliefs, perceptions and contextual factors influenced ICU clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing.MethodsWe conducted 4 focus groups and 34 semistructured interviews with clinicians involved in antibiotic prescribing in four English ICUs. Focus groups explored factors influencing prescribing, whereas interviews examined decision-making processes using two clinical vignettes. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, applying the Necessity Concerns Framework.ResultsClinicians’ antibiotic decisions were influenced by their judgement of the necessity for prescribing/not prescribing, relative to their concerns about potential adverse consequences. Antibiotic necessity perceptions were strongly influenced by beliefs that antibiotics would protect patients from deterioration and themselves from the ethical and legal consequences of undertreatment. Clinicians also reported concerns about prescribing antibiotics. These generally centred on antimicrobial resistance; however, protecting the individual patient was prioritised over these societal concerns. Few participants identified antibiotic toxicity concerns as a key influencer. Clinical uncertainty often complicated balancing antibiotic necessity against concerns. Decisions to start or continue antibiotics often represented ‘erring on the side of caution’ as a protective response in uncertainty. This approach was reinforced by previous experiences of negative consequences (‘being burnt’) which motivated prescribing ‘just in case’ of an infection. Prescribing decisions were also context-dependent, exemplified by a lower perceived threshold to prescribe antibiotics out-of-hours, input from external team members and local prescribing norms.ConclusionEfforts to improve antibiotic stewardship should consider clinicians’ desire to protect with a prescription. Rapid molecular microbiology, with appropriate communication, may diminish clinicians’ fears of not prescribing or of using narrower-spectrum antibiotics.

Background Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness is associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Continuous feeding may suppress muscle protein synthesis as a result of the muscle-full effect, unlike intermittent feeding, which may ameliorate it. Research Question Does intermittent enteral feed decrease muscle wasting compared with continuous feed in critically ill patients? Study Design and Methods In a phase 2 interventional single-blinded randomized controlled trial, 121 mechanically ventilated adult patients with multiorgan failure were recruited following prospective informed consultee assent. They were randomized to the intervention group (intermittent enteral feeding from six 4-hourly feeds per 24 h, n = 62) or control group (standard continuous enteral feeding, n = 59). The primary outcome was 10-day loss of rectus femoris muscle cross-sectional area determined by ultrasound. Secondary outcomes included nutritional target achievements, plasma amino acid concentrations, glycemic control, and physical function milestones. Results Muscle loss was similar between arms (–1.1% [95% CI, –6.1% to –4.0%]; P = .676). More intermittently fed patients received 80% or more of target protein (OR, 1.52 [1.16-1.99]; P Interpretation Intermittent feeding in early critical illness is not shown to preserve muscle mass in this trial despite resulting in a greater achievement of nutritional targets than continuous feeding. However, it is feasible and safe. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02358512; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Unnecessary antimicrobial treatment promotes the emergence of resistance. Early confirmation that a blood culture is negative could shorten antibiotic courses. The Cognitor Minus test, performed on blood culture samples after 12 hours incubation has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.5%. The aim of this study was to determine if earlier confirmation of negative blood culture result would shorten antibiotic treatment. Paired blood cultures were taken in the Critical Care Unit at a teaching hospital. The Cognitor Minus test was performed on one set >12 hours incubation but results kept blind. Clinicians were asked after 24 and 48 hours whether a result excluding bacteraemia or fungaemia would affect decisions to continue or stop antimicrobial treatment. Over 6 months, 125 patients were enrolled. The median time from start of incubation to Cognitor Minus test was 27.1 hours. When compared to 5 day blood culture results from both the control and test samples, Cognitor Minus gave NPVs of 99% and 100% respectively. Test results would have reduced antibiotic treatment in 14% (17/119) of patients at 24 and 48 hours (24% at either time) compared with routine blood culture. The availability of rapid tests to exclude bacteraemia may be of benefit in antimicrobial stewardship.

Graphical abstract, Sepsis remains a major cause of death despite advances in medical care. Metabolic deregulation is an important component of the survival process. Metabolomic analysis allows profiling of critical metabolic functions with the potential to classify patient outcome. Our prospective longitudinal characterization of 33 septic and non-septic critically ill patients showed that deviations, independent of direction, in plasma levels of lipid metabolites were associated with sepsis mortality. We identified a coupling of metabolic signatures between liver and plasma of a rat sepsis model that allowed us to apply a human kinetic model of mitochondrial beta-oxidation to reveal differing enzyme concentrations for medium/short-chain hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase (elevated in survivors) and crotonase (elevated in non-survivors). These data suggest a need to monitor cellular energy metabolism beyond the available biomarkers. A loss of metabolic adaptation appears to be reflected by an inability to maintain cellular (fatty acid) metabolism within a “corridor of safety”.

Early accurate diagnosis of infection ± organ dysfunction (sepsis) remains a major challenge in clinical practice. Utilizing effective biomarkers to identify infection and impending organ dysfunction before the onset of clinical signs and symptoms would enable earlier investigation and intervention. To our knowledge, no prior study has specifically examined the possibility of pre-symptomatic detection of sepsis.Blood samples and clinical/laboratory data were collected daily from 4385 patients undergoing elective surgery. An adjudication panel identified 154 patients with definite postoperative infection, of whom 98 developed sepsis. Transcriptomic profiling and subsequent RT-qPCR were undertaken on sequential blood samples taken postoperatively from these patients in the three days prior to the onset of symptoms. Comparison was made against postoperative day-, age-, sex- and procedure- matched patients who had an uncomplicated recovery (n =151) or postoperative inflammation without infection (n =148).Specific gene signatures optimized to predict infection or sepsis in the three days prior to clinical presentation were identified in initial discovery cohorts. Subsequent classification using machine learning with cross-validation with separate patient cohorts and their matched controls gave high Area Under the Receiver Operator Curve (AUC) values. These allowed discrimination of infection from uncomplicated recovery (AUC 0.871), infectious from non-infectious systemic inflammation (0.897), sepsis from other postoperative presentations (0.843), and sepsis from uncomplicated infection (0.703).Host biomarker signatures may be able to identify postoperative infection or sepsis up to three days in advance of clinical recognition. If validated in future studies, these signatures offer potential diagnostic utility for postoperative management of deteriorating or high-risk surgical patients and, potentially, other patient populations.

PURPOSE: Bone marrow-derived, allogeneic, multipotent adult progenitor cells demonstrated safety and efficacy in preclinical models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This phase 1/2 trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of intravenous multipotent adult progenitor cells in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS in 12 UK and USA centres. Cohorts 1 and 2 were open-label, evaluating acute safety in three subjects receiving 300 or 900 million cells, respectively. Cohort 3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial infusing 900 million cells (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) within 96 h of ARDS diagnosis. Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and plasma biomarkers. RESULTS: No allergic or serious adverse reactions were associated with cell therapy in any cohort. At baseline, the cohort 3 cell group had less severe hypoxia. For cohort 3, 28-day mortality was 25% for cell vs. 45% for placebo recipients. Median 28-day free from intensive care unit (ICU) and ventilator-free days in the cell vs. placebo group were 12.5 (IQR 0,18.5) vs. 4.5 (IQR 0,16.8) and 18.5 (IQR 0,22) vs. 6.5 (IQR 0,18.3), respectively. A prospectively defined severe ARDS subpopulation (PaO2/FiO2, National Institutes of Health, Innovate UK, and Athersys, Inc

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., OBJECTIVES: Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019. Therapeutic approaches need to be underpinned by sound biological rationale. We evaluated whether serum levels of a range of proposed coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutic targets discriminated between patients with mild or severe disease. DESIGN: A search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified coronavirus disease 2019 immunological drug targets. We subsequently conducted a retrospective observational cohort study investigating the association of serum biomarkers within the first 5 days of hospital admission relating to putative therapeutic biomarkers with illness severity and outcome. SETTING: University College London, a tertiary academic medical center in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were recruited, 44 (51%) with mild disease and 42 (49%) with severe disease. We measured levels of 10 cytokines/signaling proteins related to the most common therapeutic targets (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-α2a, interferon-β, interferon-γ, interleukin-1β, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, tumor necrosis factor-α), immunoglobulin G antibodies directed against either coronavirus disease 2019 spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, and neutralization titers of antibodies. Four-hundred seventy-seven randomized trials, including 168 different therapies against 83 different pathways, were identified. Six of the 10 markers (interleukin-6, interleukin-7, interleukin-8, interferon-α2a, interferon-β, interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) discriminated between patients with mild and severe disease, although most were similar or only modestly raised above that seen in healthy volunteers. A similar proportion of patients with mild or severe disease had detectable spike protein or nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin G antibodies with equivalent levels between groups. Neutralization titers were higher among patients with severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: Some therapeutic and prognostic biomarkers may be useful in identifying coronavirus disease 2019 patients who may benefit from specific immunomodulatory therapies, particularly interleukin-6. However, biomarker absolute values often did not discriminate between patients with mild and severe disease or death, implying that these immunomodulatory treatments may be of limited benefit.

BACKGROUND: Studies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have found varying mortality outcomes associated with underlying respiratory conditions and inhaled corticosteroid use. Using data from a national, multicentre, prospective cohort, we aimed to characterise people with COVID-19 admitted to hospital with underlying respiratory disease, assess the level of care received, measure in-hospital mortality, and examine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid use. METHODS: We analysed data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study. All patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 across England, Scotland, and Wales between Jan 17 and Aug 3, 2020, were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Patients with asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, or both, were identified and stratified by age ( FINDINGS: 75 463 patients from 258 participating health-care facilities were included in this analysis: 860 patients younger than 16 years (74 [8·6%] with asthma), 8950 patients aged 16-49 years (1867 [20·9%] with asthma), and 65 653 patients aged 50 years and older (5918 [9·0%] with asthma, 10 266 [15·6%] with chronic pulmonary disease, and 2071 [3·2%] with both asthma and chronic pulmonary disease). Patients with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to receive critical care (patients aged 16-49 years: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·20 [95% CI 1·05-1·37]; p=0·0080; patients aged ≥50 years: adjusted OR 1·17 [1·08-1·27]; p INTERPRETATION: Underlying respiratory conditions are common in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Regardless of the severity of symptoms at admission and comorbidities, patients with asthma were more likely, and those with chronic pulmonary disease less likely, to receive critical care than patients without an underlying respiratory condition. In patients aged 16 years and older, severe asthma was associated with increased mortality compared to non-severe asthma. In patients aged 50 years and older, inhaled corticosteroid use in those with asthma was associated with lower mortality than in patients without an underlying respiratory condition; patients with chronic pulmonary disease had significantly increased mortality compared to those with no underlying respiratory condition, regardless of inhaled corticosteroid use. Our results suggest that the use of inhaled corticosteroids, within 2 weeks of admission, improves survival for patients aged 50 years and older with asthma, but not for those with chronic pulmonary disease. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, NIHR Health Protection Research Units in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at the University of Liverpool and in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England.

Background Predicting bed occupancy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requires understanding of length of stay (LoS) in particular bed types. LoS can vary depending on the patient’s “bed pathway” - the sequence of transfers of individual patients between bed types during a hospital stay. In this study, we characterise these pathways, and their impact on predicted hospital bed occupancy. Methods We obtained data from University College Hospital (UCH) and the ISARIC4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required care in general ward or critical care (CC) beds to determine possible bed pathways and LoS. We developed a discrete-time model to examine the implications of using either bed pathways or only average LoS by bed type to forecast bed occupancy. We compared model-predicted bed occupancy to publicly available bed occupancy data on COVID-19 in England between March and August 2020. Results In both the UCH and CO-CIN datasets, 82% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 only received care in general ward beds. We identified four other bed pathways, present in both datasets: “Ward, CC, Ward”, “Ward, CC”, “CC” and “CC, Ward”. Mean LoS varied by bed type, pathway, and dataset, between 1.78 and 13.53 days. For UCH, we found that using bed pathways improved the accuracy of bed occupancy predictions, while only using an average LoS for each bed type underestimated true bed occupancy. However, using the CO-CIN LoS dataset we were not able to replicate past data on bed occupancy in England, suggesting regional LoS heterogeneities. Conclusions We identified five bed pathways, with substantial variation in LoS by bed type, pathway, and geography. This might be caused by local differences in patient characteristics, clinical care strategies, or resource availability, and suggests that national LoS averages may not be appropriate for local forecasts of bed occupancy for COVID-19. Trial registration The ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study ISRCTN66726260 was retrospectively registered on 21/04/2020 and designated an Urgent Public Health Research Study by NIHR.

Background Rapid molecular diagnostic tests to investigate the microbial aetiology of pneumonias may improve treatment and antimicrobial stewardship in intensive care units (ICUs). Clinicians’ endorsement and uptake of these tests is crucial to maximise engagement; however, adoption may be impeded if users harbour unaddressed concerns or if device usage is incompatible with local practice. Accordingly, we strove to identify ICU clinicians’ beliefs about molecular diagnostic tests for pneumonias before implementation at the point-of-care. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 critical care doctors working in four ICUs in the United Kingdom. A clinical vignette depicting a fictitious patient with signs of pneumonia was used to explore clinicians’ beliefs about the importance of molecular diagnostics and their concerns. Data were analysed thematically. Results Clinicians’ beliefs about molecular tests could be grouped into two categories: perceived potential of molecular diagnostics to improve antibiotic prescribing (Molecular Diagnostic Necessity) and concerns about how the test results could be implemented into practice (Molecular Diagnostic Concerns). Molecular Diagnostic Necessity stemmed from beliefs that positive results would facilitate targeted antimicrobial therapy; that negative results would signal the absence of a pathogen, and consequently that having the molecular diagnostic results would bolster clinicians’ prescribing confidence. Molecular Diagnostic Concerns included unfamiliarity with the device’s capabilities, worry that it would detect non-pathogenic bacteria, uncertainty whether it would fail to detect pathogens, and discomfort with withholding antibiotics until receiving molecular test results. Conclusions Clinicians believed rapid molecular diagnostics for pneumonias were potentially important and were open to using them; however, they harboured concerns about the tests’ capabilities and integration into clinical practice. Implementation strategies should bolster users’ necessity beliefs while reducing their concerns; this can be accomplished by publicising the tests’ purpose and benefits, identifying and addressing clinicians’ misconceptions, establishing a trial period for first-hand familiarisation, and emphasising that, with a swift (e.g., 60–90 min) test, antibiotics can be started and refined after molecular diagnostic results become available.

Aims and objectives Oral health deteriorates following hospitalisation in critical care units (CCU) but there are no validated measures to assess effects on oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL). The objectives of this study were (i) to develop a tool (CCU-OHQoL) to assess OHQoL amongst patients admitted to CCU, (ii) to collect data to analyse the validity, reliability and acceptability of the CCU-OHQoL tool and (iii) to investigate patient-reported outcome measures of OHQoL in patients hospitalised in a CCU. Methods The project included three phases: (1) the development of an initial questionnaire informed by a literature review and expert panel, (2) testing of the tool in CCU (n = 18) followed by semi-structured interviews to assess acceptability, face and content validity and (3) final tool modification and testing of CCU-OHQoL questionnaire to assess validity and reliability. Results The CCU-OHQoL showed good face and content validity and was quick to administer. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72 suggesting good internal consistency. For construct validity, the CCU-OHQoL was strongly and significantly correlated (correlation coefficients 0.71, 0.62 and 0.77, p Conclusions The new CCU-OHQoL tool may be of use in the assessment of oral health-related quality of life in CCU patients. Deterioration of OHQoL seems to be common in CCU patients.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology of sepsis in critical care by applying the Sepsis-3 criteria to electronic health records. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. SETTING: Ten ICUs from four U.K. National Health Service hospital trusts contributing to the National Institute for Health Research Critical Care Health Informatics Collaborative. PATIENTS: A total of 28,456 critical care admissions (14,332 emergency medical, 4,585 emergency surgical, and 9,539 elective surgical). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine thousand three hundred forty-three episodes of clinical deterioration were identified with a rise in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of at least 2 points, of which 14,869 (50.7%) were associated with antibiotic escalation and thereby met the Sepsis-3 criteria for sepsis. A total of 4,100 episodes of sepsis (27.6%) were associated with vasopressor use and lactate greater than 2.0 mmol/L, and therefore met the Sepsis-3 criteria for septic shock. ICU mortality by source of sepsis was highest for ICU-acquired sepsis (23.7%; 95% CI, 21.9–25.6%), followed by hospital-acquired sepsis (18.6%; 95% CI, 17.5–19.9%), and community-acquired sepsis (12.9%; 95% CI, 12.1–13.6%) (p for comparison less than 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully operationalized the Sepsis-3 criteria to an electronic health record dataset to describe the characteristics of critical care patients with sepsis. This may facilitate sepsis research using electronic health record data at scale without relying on human coding.

BackgroundThe early recognition and management of sepsis improves outcomes. Biomarkers may help in identifying earlier sub-clinical signs of sepsis. We explored the potential of serial measurements of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and pancreatic stone protein (PSP) for the early recognition of sepsis in patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis was a multicentric international prospective observational clinical study conducted in 14 ICUs in France, Switzerland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Adult ICU patients at risk of nosocomial sepsis were included. A biomarker-blinded adjudication committee identified sepsis events and the days on which they began. The association of clinical sepsis diagnoses with the trajectories of PSP, CRP, and PCT in the 3 days preceding these diagnoses of sepsis were tested for markers of early sepsis detection. The performance of the biomarkers in sepsis diagnosis was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.ResultsOf the 243 patients included, 53 developed nosocomial sepsis after a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3–8 days). Clinical sepsis diagnosis was associated with an increase in biomarkers value over the 3 days preceding this diagnosis [PSP (p = 0.003), PCT (p = 0.025) and CRP (p = 0.009)]. PSP started to increase 5 days before the clinical diagnosis of sepsis, PCT 3 and CRP 2 days, respectively. The area under the ROC curve at the time of clinical sepsis was similar for all markers (PSP, 0.75; CRP, 0.77; PCT, 0.75).ConclusionsWhile the diagnostic accuracy of PSP, CRP and PCT for sepsis were similar in this cohort, serial PSP measurement demonstrated an increase of this marker the days preceding the onset of signs necessary to clinical diagnose sepsis. This observation justifies further evaluation of the potential clinical benefit of serial PSP measurement in the management of critically ill patients developing nosocomial sepsis.Trial registrationThe study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT03474809), on March 16, 2018.https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03474809?term=NCT03474809&draw=2&rank=1.

Background\ud \ud Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions.\ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal–external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London).\ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal–external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [–0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model.\ud \ud \ud Interpretation\ud \ud The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.\ud \ud \ud Funding\ud \ud National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.

GM-CSF is elevated early, scaled with severity, and is central to the inflammatory response in COVID-19, but not severe influenza., While it is now widely accepted that host inflammatory responses contribute to lung injury, the pathways that drive severity and distinguish coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from other viral lung diseases remain poorly characterized. We analyzed plasma samples from 471 hospitalized patients recruited through the prospective multicenter ISARIC4C study and 39 outpatients with mild disease, enabling extensive characterization of responses across a full spectrum of COVID-19 severity. Progressive elevation of levels of numerous inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (including IL-6, CXCL10, and GM-CSF) were associated with severity and accompanied by elevated markers of endothelial injury and thrombosis. Principal component and network analyses demonstrated central roles for IL-6 and GM-CSF in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Comparing these profiles to archived samples from patients with fatal influenza, IL-6 was equally elevated in both conditions whereas GM-CSF was prominent only in COVID-19. These findings further identify the key inflammatory, thrombotic, and vascular factors that characterize and distinguish severe and fatal COVID-19.

Objective To characterise the clinical features of children and young people admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the UK and explore factors associated with admission to critical care, mortality, and development of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adolescents temporarily related to coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) (MIS-C). Design Prospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real time analysis. Setting 260 hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland between 17 January and 3 July 2020, with a minimum follow-up time of two weeks (to 17 July 2020). Participants 651 children and young people aged less than 19 years admitted to 138 hospitals and enrolled into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emergency Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Main outcome measures Admission to critical care (high dependency or intensive care), in-hospital mortality, or meeting the WHO preliminary case definition for MIS-C. Results Median age was 4.6 (interquartile range 0.3-13.7) years, 35% (225/651) were under 12 months old, and 56% (367/650) were male. 57% (330/576) were white, 12% (67/576) South Asian, and 10% (56/576) black. 42% (276/651) had at least one recorded comorbidity. A systemic mucocutaneous-enteric cluster of symptoms was identified, which encompassed the symptoms for the WHO MIS-C criteria. 18% (116/632) of children were admitted to critical care. On multivariable analysis, this was associated with age under 1 month (odds ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 7.66; P=0.008), age 10-14 years (3.23, 1.55 to 6.99; P=0.002), and black ethnicity (2.82, 1.41 to 5.57; P=0.003). Six (1%) of 627 patients died in hospital, all of whom had profound comorbidity. 11% (52/456) met the WHO MIS-C criteria, with the first patient developing symptoms in mid-March. Children meeting MIS-C criteria were older (median age 10.7 (8.3-14.1) v 1.6 (0.2-12.9) years; Pv 42% (148/355); P=0.004). Children with MIS-C were five times more likely to be admitted to critical care (73% (38/52) v 15% (62/404); Pv 28% (86/302); P=0.004), headache (34% (16/47) v 10% (26/263); Pv 8% (21/270); Pv (12% (34/284); P=0.003), and lymphadenopathy (20% (9/46) v 3% (10/318); P9 /L (32% (16/50) v 11% (38/348); P Conclusions Children and young people have less severe acute covid-19 than adults. A systemic mucocutaneous-enteric symptom cluster was also identified in acute cases that shares features with MIS-C. This study provides additional evidence for refining the WHO MIS-C preliminary case definition. Children meeting the MIS-C criteria have different demographic and clinical features depending on whether they have acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (polymerase chain reaction positive) or are post-acute (antibody positive). Study registration ISRCTN66726260.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates for patients with ARDS remain high. We assessed temporal changes in the epidemiology and management of ARDS patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in European ICUs. We also investigated the association between ventilatory settings and outcome in these patients. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of two cohorts of adult ICU patients admitted between May 1-15, 2002 (SOAP study, n = 3147), and May 8-18, 2012 (ICON audit, n = 4601 admitted to ICUs in the same 24 countries as the SOAP study). ARDS was defined retrospectively using the Berlin definitions. Values of tidal volume, PEEP, plateau pressure, and FiO2 corresponding to the most abnormal value of arterial PO2 were recorded prospectively every 24 h. In both studies, patients were followed for outcome until death, hospital discharge or for 60 days. RESULTS: The frequency of ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation during the ICU stay was similar in SOAP and ICON (327[10.4%] vs. 494[10.7%], p = 0.793). The diagnosis of ARDS was established at a median of 3 (IQ: 1-7) days after admission in SOAP and 2 (1-6) days in ICON. Within 24 h of diagnosis, ARDS was mild in 244 (29.7%), moderate in 388 (47.3%), and severe in 189 (23.0%) patients. In patients with ARDS, tidal volumes were lower in the later (ICON) than in the earlier (SOAP) cohort. Plateau and driving pressures were also lower in ICON than in SOAP. ICU (134[41.1%] vs 179[36.9%]) and hospital (151[46.2%] vs 212[44.4%]) mortality rates in patients with ARDS were similar in SOAP and ICON. High plateau pressure (> 29 cmH2O) and driving pressure (> 14 cmH2O) on the first day of mechanical ventilation but not tidal volume (> 8 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) were independently associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSION: The frequency of and outcome from ARDS remained relatively stable between 2002 and 2012. Plateau pressure > 29 cmH2O and driving pressure > 14 cmH2O on the first day of mechanical ventilation but not tidal volume > 8 ml/kg PBW were independently associated with a higher risk of death. These data highlight the continued burden of ARDS and provide hypothesis-generating data for the design of future studies., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: For a targeted therapeutic strategy to show outcome benefit, there needs to be a strong biological and pathogenic rationale to underpin and direct personalised treatments. Relevant biological disease features and biomarkers identify patients for the correct therapeutic, delivered at an appropriate time, dose and duration for maximal efficacy. We evaluated whether serum levels of a wide range of proposed therapeutic targets in COVID-19 discriminated between patients with mild and severe disease or death. Methods: A search of clinicaltrials.gov identified immunological drug targets in COVID-19. We subsequently conducted an observational study investigating the association of serum biomarkers relating to putative therapeutic biomarkers with illness severity and outcome. Results: A search of clinicaltrials.gov identified 477 randomized trials assessing immunomodulatory therapies, including 168 different therapies against 83 different pathways. We measured levels of ten cytokines/signalling proteins including those related to the most common therapeutic targets (GM-CSF, IFN-α2a, IFN-β, IFN-γ, IL-1β, IL-1ra, IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, TNF-α), immunoglobulin G ( IgG) antibodies directed against either the COVID-19 spike protein (S1) or nucleocapsid protein (N), and neutralization titres of antibodies within the first 5 days of hospital admission in 86 patients, 44 (51%) with mild disease and 42 (49%) with severe disease. Six of the ten cytokine/signalling protein markers measured (IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, interferon- a, interferon- b, IL -1ra ) discriminated between patients with mild and severe disease, although most were similar or only modestly raised above that seen in healthy volunteers. A similar proportion of patients with mild or severe disease had detectable S1 or N IgG antibodies with equivalent levels between groups. Neutralization titres were higher among patients with severe disease. Interpretation: Some therapeutic and prognostic biomarkers may be potentially useful in identifying patients who may benefit from specific immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19 disease, particularly interleukin-6. It is however noteworthy that absolute values of a number of identified biomarkers were either appropriately elevated or within the normal range. This implies that these immunomodulatory treatments may be of limited benefit. Funding: National Institute for Health Research UCLH Biomedical Research Centre (BRC756/HI/MS/101440) and the UCL Coronavirus Response Fund. Declaration of Interests: MeS reports grants and advisory board fees from NewB, grants from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Critical Pressure, Apollo Therapeutics, advisory board and speaker fees (paid to his institution) from Amormed, Biotest, GE, Baxter, Roche, and Bayer, and honorarium for chairing a data monitoring and safety committee from Shionogi. All other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was received from the London-Westminster Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) on 2nd July 2020 (REC reference 20/HRA/2505, IRAS ID 284088). The SAFER study protocol was approved by the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 20/SC/0147) on 26 March 2020. Ethical oversight was provided by the South- Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee.

Rationale: The impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) has not been established. Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched population. Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 1, 2020, was undertaken and compared with patients without ILD, obtained from the ISARIC4C (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from non–idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to the hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching, patients with ILD with COVID-19 had significantly poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; confidence interval, 1.17–2.18; P = 0.003) than age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched controls without ILD. Patients with an FVC of Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.

BACKGROUND: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to COVID-19, two phenotypes, based on the severity of systemic inflammation (hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory), have been described. The hyperinflammatory phenotype is known to be associated with increased multiorgan failure and mortality. In this study, we aimed to identify these phenotypes in COVID-19-related ARDS.METHODS: In this prospective observational study done at two UK intensive care units, we recruited patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at baseline. Plasma samples were analysed for interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 1A (TNFR1) using a novel point-of-care assay. A parsimonious regression classifier model was used to calculate the probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype in COVID-19 using IL-6, soluble TNFR1, and bicarbonate levels. Data from this cohort was compared with patients with ARDS due to causes other than COVID-19 recruited to a previous UK multicentre, randomised controlled trial of simvastatin (HARP-2).FINDINGS: Between March 17 and April 25, 2020, 39 patients were recruited to the study. Median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (PaO2/FiO2) was 18 kpa (IQR 15-21) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score was 12 (10-16). 17 (44%) of 39 patients had died by day 28 of the study. Compared with survivors, patients who died were older and had lower PaO2/FiO2. The median probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype was 0·03 (IQR 0·01-0·2). Depending on the probability cutoff used to assign class, the prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype was between four (10%) and eight (21%) of 39, which is lower than the proportion of patients with the hyperinflammatory phenotype in HARP-2 (186 [35%] of 539). Using the Youden index cutoff (0·274) to classify phenotype, five (63%) of eight patients with the hyperinflammatory phenotype and 12 (39%) of 31 with the hypoinflammatory phenotype died. Compared with matched patients recruited to HARP-2, levels of IL-6 were similar in our cohort, whereas soluble TNFR1 was significantly lower in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS.INTERPRETATION: In this exploratory analysis of 39 patients, ARDS due to COVID-19 was not associated with higher systemic inflammation and was associated with a lower prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype than that observed in historical ARDS data. This finding suggests that the excess mortality observed in COVID-19-related ARDS is unlikely to be due to the upregulation of inflammatory pathways described by the parsimonious model.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, Innovate UK, and Randox.

Objectives SARS-Cov-2 virus preferentially binds to the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) on alveolar epithelial type II cells, initiating an inflammatory response and tissue damage which may impair surfactant synthesis contributing to alveolar collapse, worsening hypoxia and leading to respiratory failure. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of nebulised surfactant in COVID-19 adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure. Trial design This study is a dose-escalating randomized open-label clinical trial of 20 COVID-19 patients. Participants This study is conducted in two centres: University Hospital Southampton and University College London Hospitals. Eligible participants are aged ≥18, hospitalised with COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR), who require endotracheal intubation and are enrolled within 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. For patients unable to consent, assent is obtained from a personal legal representative (PerLR) or professional legal representative (ProfLR) prior to enrolment. The following are exclusion criteria: imminent expected death within 24 hours; specific contraindications to surfactant administration (e.g. known allergy, pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage); known or suspected pregnancy; stage 4 chronic kidney disease or requiring dialysis (i.e., eGFR < 30); liver failure (Child-Pugh Class C); anticipated transfer to another hospital, which is not a study site, within 72 hours; current or recent (within 1 month) participation in another study that, in the opinion of the investigator, would prevent enrollment for safety reasons; and declined consent or assent. Intervention and comparator Intervention: The study is based on an investigational drug/device combination product. The surfactant product is Bovactant (Alveofact®), a natural animal derived (bovine) lung surfactant formulated as a lyophilized powder in 108 mg vials and reconstituted to 45 mg/mL in buffer supplied in a prefilled syringe. It is isolated by lung lavage and, by weight, is a mixture of: phospholipid (75% phosphatidylcholine, 13% phosphatidylglycerol, 3% phosphatidylethanolamine, 1% phosphatidylinositol and 1% sphingomyelin), 5% cholesterol, 1% lipid-soluble surfactant-associated proteins (SP-B and SP-C), very low levels of free fatty acid, lyso-phosphatidylcholine, water and 0.3% calcium. The Drug Delivery Device is the AeroFact-COVID™ nebulizer, an investigational device based on the Aerogen® Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer. The timing and escalation dosing plans for the surfactant are as follows. Cohort 1: Three patients will receive 10 vials (1080 mg) each of surfactant at dosing times of 0 hours, 8 hours and 24 hours. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. Cohort 2: Three patients will receive 10 vials (1080 mg) of surfactant at dosing times of 0 hours and 8 hours, and 30 vials (3240 mg) at a dosing time of 24 hours. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. Cohort 3: Three patients will receive 10 vials (1080 mg) of surfactant at a dosing time of 0 hours, and 30 vials (3240 mg) at dosing times of 8 hours and 24 hours. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. Cohort 4: Three patients will receive 30 (3240 mg) vials each of surfactant at dosing times of 0 hours, 8 hours and 24 hours. 2 controls. 2 controls with no placebo intervention. The trial steering committee, advised by the data monitoring committee, will review trial progression and dose escalation/maintenance/reduction after each cohort is completed (48-hour primary outcome timepoint reached) based on available feasibility, adverse event, safety and efficacy data. The trial will not be discontinued on the basis of lack of efficacy. The trial may be stopped early on the basis of safety or feasibility concerns. Comparator: No placebo intervention. All participants will receive usual standard of care in accordance with the local policies for mechanically ventilated patients and all other treatments will be left to the discretion of the attending physician. Main outcomes The co-primary outcome is the improvement in oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 ratio) and pulmonary ventilation (Ventilation Index (VI), where VI = [RR x (PIP − PEEP) × PaCO2]/1000) at 48 hours after study initiation. The secondary outcomes include frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs), Adverse Device Effects (ADEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and Serious Adverse Device Events (SADEs), change in pulmonary compliance, change in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) requirement of ventilatory support at 24 and 48 hours after study initiation, clinical improvement defined by time to one improvement point on the ordinal scale described in the WHO master protocol (2020) recorded while hospitalised, days of mechanical ventilation, mechanical ventilator free days (VFD) at day 21, length of intensive care unit stay, number of days hospitalised and mortality at day 28. Exploratory end points will include quantification of SARS-CoV-2 viral load from tracheal aspirates using PCR, surfactant dynamics (synthesis and turnover) and function (surface tension reduction) from deep tracheal aspirate samples (DTAS), surfactant phospholipid concentrations in plasma and DTAS, inflammatory markers (cellular and cytokine) in plasma and DTAS, and blood oxidative stress markers. Randomisation After informed assent, patients fulfilling inclusion criteria will be randomised to 3:2 for the treatment and control arms using an internet-based block randomization service (ALEA tool for clinical trials, FormsVision BV) in combination with electronic data collection. Randomisation will be done by the recruiting centre with a unique subject identifier specific to that centre. Blinding (masking) This is an open-labelled unblinded study. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The total sample size is 20 COVID-19 mechanically ventilated patients (12 intervention; 8 control). Trial Status Current protocol version is V2 dated 5th of June 2020. The recruitment is currently ongoing and started on the 14th of October 2020. The anticipated study completion date is November 2021. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04362059 (Registered 24 April 2020), EUDAMED number: CIV-GB-20-06-033328, EudraCT number: 2020-001886-35 (Registered 11 May 2020) Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, UK national guidance recommended early intubation and ventilation to treat patients with COVID-19. However, multiple Chinese and Italian hospitals were already effectively utilising continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) to spare ventilator capacity and intensive care resource for the most seriously ill patients, with no obvious risk to their health-care workers from virus aerosolisation. At University College London Hospital (UCLH), London, UK, we thus challenged this guidance in view of the massive anticipated demand that would not be met with existing resources.

Blood culture (BC) often fails to detect bloodstream microorganisms in sepsis. However, molecular diagnostics hold great potential. The molecular method PCR/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (PCR/ESI-MS) can detect DNA from hundreds of different microorganisms in whole blood. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of this method in a multicenter study including 16 teaching hospitals in the United States (n = 13) and Europe (n = 3)., Blood culture (BC) often fails to detect bloodstream microorganisms in sepsis. However, molecular diagnostics hold great potential. The molecular method PCR/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (PCR/ESI-MS) can detect DNA from hundreds of different microorganisms in whole blood. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of this method in a multicenter study including 16 teaching hospitals in the United States (n = 13) and Europe (n = 3). First, on testing of 2,754 contrived whole blood samples, with or without spiked microorganisms, PCR/ESI-MS produced 99.1% true-positive and 97.2% true-negative results. Second, among 1,460 patients with suspected sepsis (sepsis-2 definition), BC and PCR/ESI-MS on whole blood were positive in 14.6% and 25.6% of cases, respectively, with the following result combinations: BC positive and PCR/ESI-MS negative, 4.3%; BC positive and PCR/ESI-MS positive, 10.3%; BC negative and PCR/ESI-MS positive, 15.3%; and BC negative and PCR/ESI-MS negative, 70.1%. Compared with BC, PCR/ESI-MS showed the following sensitivities (coagulase-negative staphylococci not included): Gram-positive bacteria, 58%; Gram-negative bacteria, 78%; and Candida species, 83%. The specificities were >94% for all individual species. Patients who had received prior antimicrobial medications (n = 603) had significantly higher PCR/ESI-MS positivity rates than patients without prior antimicrobial treatment—31% versus 22% (P

IntroductionSeveral viral respiratory infections - notably influenza - are associated with secondary bacterial infection and additional pathology. The extent to which this applies for COVID-19 is unknown. Accordingly, we aimed to define the bacteria causing secondary pneumonias in COVID-19 ICU patients using the FilmArray Pneumonia Panel, and to determine this test’s potential in COVID-19 management.MethodsCOVID-19 ICU patients with clinically-suspected secondary infection at 5 UK hospitals were tested with the FilmArray at point of care. We collected patient demographic data and compared FilmArray results with routine culture.ResultsWe report results of 110 FilmArray tests on 94 patients (16 had 2 tests): 69 patients (73%) were male, the median age was 59 yrs; 92 were ventilated. Median hospital stay before testing was 14 days (range 1-38). Fifty-nine (54%) tests were positive, with 141 bacteria detected. Most were Enterobacterales (n=55, includingKlebsiellaspp. [n= 35]) orStaphylococcus aureus(n=13), as is typical of hospital and ventilator pneumonia. Community pathogens, includingHaemophilus influenzae(n=8) andStreptococcus pneumoniae(n=1), were rarer. FilmArray detected one additional virus (Rhinovirus/Enterovirus) and no atypical bacteria. Fewer samples (28 % vs. 54%) were positive by routine culture, and fewer species were reported per sample;Klebsiellaspecies remained the most prevalent pathogens.ConclusionFilmArray had a higher diagnostic yield than culture for ICU COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary pneumonias. The bacteria found mostly were Enterobacterales,S. aureusandP. aeruginosa, as in typical HAP/VAP, but withKlebsiellaspp. more prominent. We found almost no viral co-infection. Turnaround from sample to results is around 1h 15 min compared with the usual 72h for culture, giving prescribers earlier data to inform antimicrobial decisions.