Rationale: No direct comparisons of clinical features, laboratory values, and outcomes between critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and patients with influenza in the United States have been reported. Objectives: To evaluate the risk of mortality comparing critically ill patients with COVID-19 with patients with seasonal influenza. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) at two academic medical centers with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or influenza A or B infections between January 1, 2019, and April 15, 2020. The clinical data were obtained by medical record review. All patients except one had follow-up to hospital discharge or death. We used relative risk regression adjusting for age, sex, number of comorbidities, and maximum sequential organ failure scores on Day 1 in the ICU to determine the risk of hospital mortality and organ dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 compared with patients with influenza. Results: We identified 65 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and 74 patients with influenza. The mean (±standard deviation) age in each group was 60.4 ± 15.7 and 56.8 ± 17.6 years, respectively. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be male, have a higher body mass index, and have higher rates of chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Of the patients with COVID-19, 37% identified as Hispanic, whereas 10% of the patients with influenza identified as Hispanic. A similar proportion of patients had fevers (∼40%) and lymphopenia (∼80%) on hospital presentation. The rates of acute kidney injury and shock requiring vasopressors were similar between the groups. Although the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was also similar in both groups, patients with COVID-19 had slower improvements in oxygenation, longer durations of mechanical ventilation, and lower rates of extubation than patients with influenza. The hospital mortality was 40% in patients with COVID-19 and 19% in patients with influenza (adjusted relative risk, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–3.63; P = 0.006). Conclusions: The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was common in patients in the ICU for COVID-19 and influenza. Compared with those with influenza, patients in the ICU with COVID-19 had worse respiratory outcomes, including longer duration of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were at greater risk for in-hospital mortality, independent of age, sex, comorbidities, and ICU severity of illness.

Background Analyses of blood biomarkers involved in the host response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral infection can reveal distinct biological pathways and inform development and testing of therapeutics for COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate host endothelial, epithelial and inflammatory biomarkers in COVID-19. Methods We prospectively enrolled 171 ICU patients, including 78 (46%) patients positive and 93 (54%) negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection from April to September, 2020. We compared 22 plasma biomarkers in blood collected within 24 h and 3 days after ICU admission. Results In critically ill COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, the most common ICU admission diagnoses were respiratory failure or pneumonia, followed by sepsis and other diagnoses. Similar proportions of patients in both groups received invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of study enrollment. COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients had similar rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome, severe acute kidney injury, and in-hospital mortality. While concentrations of interleukin 6 and 8 were not different between groups, markers of epithelial cell injury (soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, sRAGE) and acute phase proteins (serum amyloid A, SAA) were significantly higher in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19, adjusting for demographics and APACHE III scores. In contrast, angiopoietin 2:1 (Ang-2:1 ratio) and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (sTNFR-1), markers of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation, were significantly lower in COVID-19 (p < 0.002). Ang-2:1 ratio and SAA were associated with mortality only in non-COVID-19 patients. Conclusions These studies demonstrate that, unlike other well-studied causes of critical illness, endothelial dysfunction may not be characteristic of severe COVID-19 early after ICU admission. Pathways resulting in elaboration of acute phase proteins and inducing epithelial cell injury may be promising targets for therapeutics in COVID-19.

Background Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, but its heterogeneity challenges the identification of effective therapies. Defining subphenotypes with distinct prognoses or biologic features can improve therapeutic trials, but prior work has focused on ARDS, which excludes many acute HRF patients. We aimed to characterize persistent and resolving subphenotypes in the broader HRF population. Methods In this secondary analysis of 2 independent prospective ICU cohorts, we included adults with acute HRF, defined by invasive mechanical ventilation and PaO2-to-FIO2 ratio ≤ 300 on cohort enrollment (n = 768 in the discovery cohort and n = 1715 in the validation cohort). We classified patients as persistent HRF if still requiring mechanical ventilation with PaO2-to-FIO2 ratio ≤ 300 on day 3 following ICU admission, or resolving HRF if otherwise. We estimated relative risk of 28-day hospital mortality associated with persistent HRF, compared to resolving HRF, using generalized linear models. We also estimated fold difference in circulating biomarkers of inflammation and endothelial activation on cohort enrollment among persistent HRF compared to resolving HRF. Finally, we stratified our analyses by ARDS to understand whether this was driving differences between persistent and resolving HRF. Results Over 50% developed persistent HRF in both the discovery (n = 386) and validation (n = 1032) cohorts. Persistent HRF was associated with higher risk of death relative to resolving HRF in both the discovery (1.68-fold, 95% CI 1.11, 2.54) and validation cohorts (1.93-fold, 95% CI 1.50, 2.47), after adjustment for age, sex, chronic respiratory illness, and acute illness severity on enrollment (APACHE-III in discovery, APACHE-II in validation). Patients with persistent HRF displayed higher biomarkers of inflammation (interleukin-6, interleukin-8) and endothelial dysfunction (angiopoietin-2) than resolving HRF after adjustment. Only half of persistent HRF patients had ARDS, yet exhibited higher mortality and biomarkers than resolving HRF regardless of whether they qualified for ARDS. Conclusion Patients with persistent HRF are common and have higher mortality and elevated circulating markers of lung injury compared to resolving HRF, and yet only a subset are captured by ARDS definitions. Persistent HRF may represent a clinically important, inclusive target for future therapeutic trials in HRF.