ARS-CoV-2 is the causal agent for COVID-19, and the World Health Organization classifies this virus as an airborne pathogen transmitted by asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic individuals through close contact via exposure to infected droplets and aerosols 1,2 . Although SARS-CoV-2 transmission can occur by activities involving the oral cavity, such as speaking, breathing, coughing, sneezing and even singing [3][4][5] , most attention has focused on the nasal-lung axis of infection 6 . Oral manifestations, such as taste loss, dry mouth and oral lesions, are evident in about half of COVID-19 cases [7][8][9] , although it remains unknown whether SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect and replicate in oral tissues, such as the salivary glands (SGs) or mucosa. This is critical because, if these are sites of early infection, they could play an important role in transmitting the virus to the lungs or the gastrointestinal tract via saliva, as has been suggested for other microbial-associated diseases, such as pneumonia 10 and inflammatory bowel diseases 11,12 (Extended Data Fig. 1a).SARS-CoV-2 uses host entry factors, such as ACE2 and TMPRSS family members (TMPRSS2 and TMPRSS4) 13,14 , and understanding the cell types that harbor these receptors is important for determining infection susceptibilities throughout the body [15][16][17] . ACE2 and TMPRSS2 expression has been reported in oral tissues 18,19 ; however, there are no comprehensive descriptions of viral entry factor expression nor direct confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in oral tissues. We hypothesized that SGs and barrier epithelia of the oral cavity and oropharynx can be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and contribute to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. To test this, we generated two human oral single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) atlases to predict cell-specific susceptibilities to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We confirmed ACE2 and TMPRSS expression in SGs and oral mucosa epithelia. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed using autopsy and outpatient samples. Saliva from asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19 demonstrated the potential for viral transmission. In a prospective clinical cohort, we found a positive correlation between salivary viral load and taste loss; we also demonstrated persistent salivary antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins. ResultsOral tissue atlases reveal resident immune cells and niche-specific epithelial diversity. The SGs and the barrier mucosa of the oral cavity and oropharynx are likely gateways for viral infection, replication SARS-CoV-2 infection of the oral cavity and saliva

BACKGROUNDVasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODSWe randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTSA total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (−1.75 vs. −1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS 420T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine S hock is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by decreased organ perfusion that can progress to irreversible organ failure. 1 Vasodilatory shock is the most common type of shock and is characterized by peripheral vasodilation and reduced blood pressure despite preserved cardiac output. 2 Vasodilatory shock requires immediate treatment to ensure organ perfusion through the reestablishment of adequate blood pressure while the underlying cause of shock is identified and treated. 3 Vasopressors are used when intravenous fluid resuscitation alone fails to restore blood pressure. Patients with severe vasodilation who have hypotension despite the use of high doses of vasopressors have a poor prognosis, with 30-day all-cause mortality exceeding 50%. 4,5 Currently, only two classes of vasopressors are available: catecholamines (and other sympathomimetic amines) and vasopressin. 3 Both classes have narrow therapeutic windows owing to substantial toxic effects at high doses. 6 However, when hypotension occurs, human physiology engages a third system, which is represented by hormones in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). 7 Previously, modified bovine angiotensin II was shown to elicit consis...

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for study outcomes were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days before admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin versus 48.4% nonaspirin, P = .03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin versus 51.0% nonaspirin, P = .04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin versus 23.2% nonaspirin, P = .51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR, 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.85, P = .007), ICU admission (adjusted HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85, P = .005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.31-0.90, P = .02). There were no differences in major bleeding (P = .69) or overt thrombosis (P = .82) between aspirin users and nonaspirin users. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is known to cause multi-organ dysfunction 1 – 3 during acute infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with some patients experiencing prolonged symptoms, termed post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (refs. 4 , 5 ). However, the burden of infection outside the respiratory tract and time to viral clearance are not well characterized, particularly in the brain 3 , 6 – 14 . Here we carried out complete autopsies on 44 patients who died with COVID-19, with extensive sampling of the central nervous system in 11 of these patients, to map and quantify the distribution, replication and cell-type specificity of SARS-CoV-2 across the human body, including the brain, from acute infection to more than seven months following symptom onset. We show that SARS-CoV-2 is widely distributed, predominantly among patients who died with severe COVID-19, and that virus replication is present in multiple respiratory and non-respiratory tissues, including the brain, early in infection. Further, we detected persistent SARS-CoV-2 RNA in multiple anatomic sites, including throughout the brain, as late as 230 days following symptom onset in one case. Despite extensive distribution of SARS-CoV-2 RNA throughout the body, we observed little evidence of inflammation or direct viral cytopathology outside the respiratory tract. Our data indicate that in some patients SARS-CoV-2 can cause systemic infection and persist in the body for months.

Rationale: Exogenous angiotensin II increases mean arterial pressure in patients with catecholamine-resistant vasodilatory shock (CRVS). We hypothesized that renin concentrations may identify patients most likely to benefit from such therapy. Objectives: To test the kinetic changes in renin concentrations and their prognostic value in patients with CRVS. Methods: We analyzed serum samples from patients enrolled in the ATHOS-3 (Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock) trial for renin, angiotensin I, and angiotensin II concentrations before the start of administration of angiotensin II or placebo and after 3 hours. Measurements and Main Results: Baseline serum renin concentration (normal range, 2.13–58.78 pg/ml) was above the upper limits of normal in 194 of 255 (76%) study patients with a median renin concentration of 172.7 pg/ml (interquartile range [IQR], 60.7 to 440.6 pg/ml), approximately threefold higher than the upper limit of normal. Renin concentrations correlated positively with angiotensin I/II ratios ( r = 0.39; P < 0.001). At 3 hours after initiation of angiotensin II therapy, there was a 54.3% reduction (IQR, 37.9% to 66.5% reduction) in renin concentration compared with a 14.1% reduction (IQR, 37.6% reduction to 5.1% increase) with placebo ( P < 0.0001). In patients with renin concentrations above the study population median, angiotensin II significantly reduced 28-day mortality to 28 of 55 (50.9%) patients compared with 51 of 73 patients (69.9%) treated with placebo (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.88; P = 0.012) ( P = 0.048 for the interaction). Conclusions: The serum renin concentration is markedly elevated in CRVS and may identify patients for whom treatment with angiotensin II has a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02338843).

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Methods Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Results Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Conclusion Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

No abstract

Background: Telemedicine, or healthcare delivery from a distance, has evolved over the past 50 years and helped alter health care delivery to patients around the globe. Its integration into numerous domains has permitted high quality care that transcends obstacles of geographic distance, lack of access to health care providers, and cost. Ultrasound is an effective diagnostic tool and its application within telemedicine (“tele-ultrasound”) has advanced substantially in recent years, particularly in high-income settings. However, the utility of tele-ultrasound in resource-limited settings is less firmly established.Objective: To determine whether remote tele-ultrasound is a feasible, accurate, and care-altering imaging tool in resource-limited settings.Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase.Study Eligibility Criteria: Twelve original articles met the following eligibility criteria: full manuscript available, written in English, including a direct patient-care intervention, performed in a resource-limited setting, images sent to a remote expert reader for interpretation and feedback, contained objective data on the impact of tele-ultrasound.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Abstracts were independently screened by two authors against inclusion criteria for full-text review. Any discrepancies were settled by a senior author. Data was extracted from each study using a modified Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template. Study bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool.Results: The study results reflect the diverse applications of tele-ultrasound in low-resource settings. Africa was the most common study location. The specialties of cardiology and obstetrics comprised most studies. Two studies primarily relied on smartphones for image recording and transmission. Real-time, rather than asynchronous, tele-ultrasound image interpretation occurred in five of the 12 studies. The most common outcome measures were image quality, telemedicine system requirements, diagnostic accuracy, and changes in clinical management.Limitations: The studies included were of poor quality with a dearth of randomized control trials and with significant between study heterogeneity which resulted in incomplete data and made cross study comparison difficult.Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings: Low-quality evidence suggests that ultrasound images acquired in resource-limited settings and transmitted using a telemedical platform to an expert interpreter are of satisfactory quality and value for clinical diagnosis and management.