IMPORTANCE The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. OBJECTIVES To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. EXPOSURES Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. RESULTS A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (Ն80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (Ն40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (PaO 2 :FIO 2 <100 vs Ն300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30-5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46-4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs Ն100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.

Some patients infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) develop severe pneumonia and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) 1 . Distinct clinical features in these patients have led to speculation that the immune response to virus in the SARS-CoV-2-infected alveolus differs from other types of pneumonia 2 . We collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from 88 patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced respiratory failure and 211 patients with known or suspected pneumonia from other pathogens and subjected them to flow cytometry and bulk transcriptomic profiling. We performed single-cell RNA-seq on 10 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples collected from patients with severe COVID-19 within 48 hours of intubation. In the majority of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the alveolar space was persistently enriched in T cells and monocytes. Bulk and single-cell transcriptomic profiling suggested that SARS-CoV-2 infects alveolar macrophages, which in turn respond by producing T cell chemoattractants. These T cells produce interferon-gamma to induce inflammatory cytokine release from alveolar macrophages and further promote T cell activation. Collectively, our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 causes a slowly-unfolding, spatially limited alveolitis in which alveolar macrophages harboring SARS-CoV-2 and T cells form a positive feedback loop that drives persistent alveolar inflammation.

IMPORTANCE Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. OBJECTIVE To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. EXPOSURES Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. RESULTS Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab-treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.

Complete author and article information provided before references.

Background/Objectives Older adults commonly face difficult decisions regarding invasive medical treatments near the end of life, including surgical procedures. There is a need for interventions that help physicians, patients and caregivers deliberate about these difficult decisions and make informed choices that reflect patients’ values and goals. Design We designed a communication tool called “Best Case/Worst Case” (BC/WC) based on an established conceptual model of shared decision making. We evaluated the tool with focus groups of seniors (4 groups) and surgeons (2 groups) using modified questions from the Decision Aid Acceptability Scale and the Decisional Conflict Scale. Setting and Participants We recruited 37 adults over age 60 from senior centers and 17 surgeons from academic and private practices in Wisconsin to participate in the study. Measurements We used qualitative content analysis to explore themes and concepts identified by focus group respondents. Results Seniors and surgeons praised the tool for the unambiguous illustration of multiple treatment options, and the clarity gained from presentation of an array of treatment outcomes. Participants noted that the tool provides both an opportunity for in-the-moment, preference-based deliberation about options and a platform for further discussion with other clinicians and loved ones. Seniors worried that the format of the tool was not universally accessible for patients with different educational backgrounds, while surgeons had concerns that the tool was vulnerable to physicians’ subjective biases. Conclusion The BC/WC tool is a novel decision support intervention that may help facilitate difficult decision making for older adults and their physicians when considering invasive, acute medical treatments such as surgery.