Citations

Background: COVID-19 reveals new manifestations not only in the acute phase but also in the long term. The latter is what has been termed as ‘post acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection’ (PASC) — or “long COVID”— with dyspnea as one of its hallmarks. Cardiopulmonary stress testing (CPET) is increasingly being used to better evaluate such patients. Objective: To compare CPET findings of long COVID patients versus non-COVID patients with undifferentiated dyspnea on exertion seen at Mayo Clinic. Methods: A cohort study was carried out using Mayo Clinic’s exercise testing database. The study group included 77 PASC patients confirmed by a positive antigen or PCR test with no prior history of heart or lung disease. PASC patients were compared to 766 non-COVID patients with unspecified dyspnea without known diagnosis of cardiac or pulmonary disease. ANOVA according to the general linear model and Pearson’s Chi square were used for the bivariate analysis of the quantitative and categorical variables, respectively. Analyses were controlled for age, sex, and beta blocker use as appropriate. Both HR and SBP at rest and peak exercise were significantly different between groups, although the absolute differences were small. Results: Compared with the control group, the post-COVID patients were younger (mean age 47 SD ±14.9 years versus 50.5 SD ±10.1 years) and more likely to be female (70.1% (54 of 77) vs 57.6% (441 of 766)). Although there were many significant differences in the CPET results, the most outstanding were a lower FAC (73 SD ±19.4% vs 85.2 SD ±20.8%) and peak VO2 (22 SD ±6.4 ml/kg/min vs 25.8 SD ±7.37 ml/kg/min) in the study group (p<.0001). Also, CNS changes during CPET were reported at higher rates (19.5% (15 of 77) vs 11.4% (87 of 766)) while dyspnea at lower rates (55.8% (43 of 77) vs 65.7% (503 of 766)) in post-COVID patients (p=0.02). When adjusting for age and sex, weight was significantly higher in the study group (p=0.03) although the absolute difference was modest and BMI remained not significant. PFTs did not suggest any pulmonary abnormalities. Conclusions: We identified a high rate of severe exercise limitation among long COVID patients. Young women may be at higher risk for these complications. Pre-exercise PFTs and absence of objective respiratory limitation during CPET argue against a primary pulmonary cause of the observed limitations, though evaluation of cardiac, autonomic, and muscular impairment is pending. Further studies are warranted to untangle the physiologic abnormalities responsible for these observations.

Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the safety and use of a nature-based virtual reality (VR) experience among health care providers (HCP) during a pandemic. Methods: Twenty-four frontline HCP participated in this crossover pilot where the viewing order of the experiences were randomized. All participants attended in-person consent, baseline, and end-of-study visits. The intervention consisted of viewing 2 nature-based scenes (“walk in the woods” and “forest of focus”) through 3-D VR and with computer 4K graphic imagery. Randomization took place with regards to the viewing order (VR vs 4K computer video, scene 1 and 2). Outcomes measured were safety, acceptability and changes in intensity of anxiety feelings, resilience, emotional distress, cognitive function, and self-efficacy. Results: Among the 26 HCP expressing interest in the study, 24 enrolled in this study. The majority were male (58.3%), white (66.7%) and of an average age of 46.3 ± 10.5 years (standard deviation (SD)). End of the study survey showed that almost all participants (96%) would participate in the study again and recommend it to others. Twenty-three of the 24 participants also felt relaxed after seeing the imagery. With respect to anxiety (as measured by the STAI Y1), the VR “walk in the woods” had the greatest reduction from pre to post (6.4 points, SD = 5.98) followed by VR “forest of focus” (5.8 points, SD = 9.29), computer screen “forest of focus” (5.0 points, SD = 8.89), and computer screen “walk in the woods” (4.1 points, SD = 6.22). All 4 sessions had a significant decrease in score from pre to post (P-values ≤.005), but there was no significant difference in the change from pre- to post-session between the 4 groups (P-value = .5835). Conclusion: The use of the VR among HCP has promise for reducing stress among health care providers during a high stress period, such as a pandemic but much larger studies are needed.

AbstractBackgroundSolid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at increased risk for complications from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Little is known regarding clinical course and outcomes of breakthrough COVID‐19 in the fully vaccinated SOT population. We sought to describe our cohort of SOT recipients who developed symptomatic breakthrough COVID‐19 after full vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of SOT recipients diagnosed with COVID‐19 at least 14 days after completing SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination. Patients were analyzed according to those presenting with mild‐to‐moderate and severe COVID‐19, respectively. We described presenting characteristics, COVID‐19 therapy, and analyzed outcomes including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.ResultsThirty‐five patients met inclusion criteria. These had a mean age of 60.8 years and kidney transplant was the most common SOT type. Five patients presented with severe COVID‐19 at diagnosis, all requiring hospitalization without ICU admission. From the 30 patients who presented with mild‐to‐moderate infection, 28 received casirivimab–imdevimab. Four of these 28 (14.3%) had an ED visit, with one requiring hospital admission (3.4%). No patients required ICU admission.ConclusionBreakthrough COVID‐19 may occur in SOT recipients after full vaccination, though they appear to have acceptable outcomes. Anti‐spike monoclonal antibody therapy for eligible SOT patients may have mitigated clinical progression and improved the outcomes. Further study with large cohorts is warranted.

Abstract Background Breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may occur in fully vaccinated persons. Methods We assessed the clinical outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals. Results In this cohort of 1395 persons (mean age, 54.3 years; 60% female; median body mass index, 30.7) who developed breakthrough COVID- 19, there were 107 (7.7%) who required hospitalization by day 28. Hospitalization was significantly associated with the number of medical comorbidities. Antispike monoclonal antibody treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.227; 95% confidence interval, 0.128–0.403; P &lt; .001). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 hospitalization was 225 among the lowest risk patient group compared with NNT of 4 among those with highest numbers of medical comorbidity. Conclusions Monoclonal antibody treatment is associated with reduced hospitalization in vaccinated high-risk persons with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Abstract Background Bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab are authorized for treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of patients who received these therapies to identify factors associated with hospitalization and other clinical outcomes. Methods Adult patients who received monoclonal antibody from 19 November 2020 to 11 February 2021 were selected and divided into those who received bamlanivimab (n = 2747) and casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 849). The 28-day all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalizations were compared between the groups. Results The population included 3596 patients; the median age was 62 years, and 50% were female. All had ≥1 medical comorbidity; 55% had multiple comorbidities. All-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates at 28 days were 3.98% and 2.56%, respectively. After adjusting for medical comorbidities, there was no significant difference in all-cause and COVID-19–related hospitalization rates between bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.4 [.9–2.2] and 1.6 [.8–2.7], respectively). Chronic kidney, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and immunocompromised status were associated with higher likelihood of hospitalization. Conclusions This observational study on the use of bamlanivimab and casirivimab-imdevimab in high-risk patients showed similarly low rates of hospitalization. The number and type of medical comorbidities are associated with hospitalizations after monoclonal antibody treatment.

Objective To develop and implement criteria for description of post COVID syndrome based on analysis of patients presenting for evaluation at Mayo Clinic Rochester between November 2019 and August 2020. Methods A total of 465 patients with a history of testing positive for COVID-19 were identified and their medical records reviewed. After a thorough review, utilizing the DELPHI methods by an expert panel, 42 (9%) cases were identified with persistent central sensitization (CS) symptoms persisting after the resolution of acute COVID-19, herein referred to as Post COVID syndrome (PoCoS). In this report we describe the baseline characteristics of these PoCoS patients. Results Among these 42 PoCoS patients, the mean age was 46.2 years (median age was 46.5 years). Pain (90%), fatigue (74%), dyspnea (43%), and orthostatic intolerance (38%) were the most common symptoms. The characteristics of an initial 14 patients were utilized for the development of clinical criteria via a modified Delphi Method by a panel of experts in central sensitization disorders. These criteria were subsequently applied in the identification of 28 additional cases of suspected PoCoS. A 2-reviewer system was used to analyze agreement with using the criteria, with all 28 cases determined to be either probable or possible cases by the reviewers. Inter-reviewer agreement using these proposed defining criteria was high with a Cohen’s alpha of .88. Conclusions Here we present what we believe to be the first definitional criteria for Post COVID syndrome. These may be useful in clinical phenotyping of these patients for targeted treatment and future research.

Objective Persistent post-COVID symptoms are estimated to occur in up to 10% of patients who have had COVID-19. These lingering symptoms may persist for weeks to months after resolution of the acute illness. This study aimed to add insight into our understanding of certain post-acute conditions and clinical findings. The primary purpose was to determine the persistent post COVID impairments prevalence and characteristics by collecting post COVID illness data utilizing Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ). The resulting measures were used to assess surveyed patients physical, mental, and social health status. Methods A cross-sectional study and 6-months Mayo Clinic COVID recovered registry data were used to evaluate continuing symptoms severity among the 817 positive tested patients surveyed between March and September 2020. The resulting PROMIS ® data set was used to analyze patients post 30 days health status. The e-mailed questionnaires focused on fatigue, sleep, ability to participate in social roles, physical function, and pain. Results The large sample size (n = 817) represented post hospitalized and other managed outpatients. Persistent post COVID impairments prevalence and characteristics were determined to be demographically young (44 years), white (87%), and female (61%). Dysfunction as measured by the PROMIS ® scales in patients recovered from acute COVID-19 was reported as significant in the following domains: ability to participate in social roles (43.2%), pain (17.8%), and fatigue (16.2%). Conclusion Patient response on the PROMIS ® scales was similar to that seen in multiple other studies which used patient reported symptoms. As a result of this experience, we recommend utilizing standardized scales such as the PROMIS ® to obtain comparable data across the patients’ clinical course and define the disease trajectory. This would further allow for effective comparison of data across studies to better define the disease process, risk factors, and assess the impact of future treatments.

AbstractBackgroundBamlanivimab 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSeventy-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 &lt; .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 &lt; .05).ConclusionsMonoclonal 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.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.