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.

SummaryBACKGROUNDTwelve months of oral cyclophosphamide (CYC) has been shown to alter the progression of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) when compared to placebo. However, toxicity was a concern and without continued treatment the efficacy disappeared by 24 months. We hypothesized that a two-year course of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) would be safer, better tolerated and produce longer lasting improvements than CYC.METHODSPatients with SSc-ILD meeting defined dyspnea, pulmonary function and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) criteria were randomized in a double-blind, two-arm trial at 14 medical centers. MMF (target dose 1500 mg twice daily) was administered for 24 months in one arm and oral CYC (target dose 2·0 mg/kg/day) administered for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months in the other arm. The primary endpoint, change in forced vital capacity as a percent of the predicted normal value (FVC %) over the course of 24 months, was assessed in a modified intention-to-treat analysis using an inferential joint model combining a mixed effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00883129, and is closed.RESULTSBetween November, 2009, and January, 2013, 142 patients were randomized. 126 patients (63 MMF; 63 CYC) with acceptable baseline HRCT studies and at least one outcome measure were included in the analysis. The adjusted FVC % (primary endpoint) improved from baseline to 24 months by 2.17 in the MMF arm (95% CI, 0.53–3.84) and 2·86 in the CYC arm (95% confidence interval 1·19–4·58) with no significant between-treatment difference (p=0·24), indicating that the trial was negative for the primary endpoint. However, in a post-hoc analysis of the primary endpoint, within-treatment improvements from baseline to 24 months were noted in both the CYC and MMF arms. A greater number of patients on CYC than on MMF prematurely withdrew from study drug (32 vs 20) and failed treatment (2 vs 0), and the time to stopping treatment was significantly shorter in the CYC arm (p=0·019). Sixteen deaths occurred (11 CYC; 5 MMF) with most due to progressive ILD. Leukopenia (30 vs 4 patients) and thrombocytopenia (4 vs 0 patients) occurred more often in patients treated with CYC. In post-hoc analyses, within- (but not between-) treatment improvements were also noted in defined secondary outcomes including skin score, dyspnea and whole-lung HRCT scores.INTERPRETATIONTreatment of SSc-ILD with MMF for two years or CYC for one year both resulted in significant improvements in pre-specified measures of lung function, dyspnea, lung imaging, and skin disease over the 2-year course of the study. While MMF was better tolerated and associated with less toxicity, the hypothesis that it would have greater efficacy at 24 months than CYC was not confirmed. These findings support the potential clinical impact of both CYC and MMF for progressive SSc-ILD, as well as the current preference for MMF due to its b...

Results: There were 636,282 new cases and 28,325 deaths of COVID-19 in the USA from March 1 to April 15, 2020, with a crude mortality of 4.45%. The daily new cases peaked at 35,098 cases on April 10, 2020 and the daily deaths peaked at 2,494 on April 15, 2020. The search interest of COVID, "COVID pneumonia" and "COVID heart" were correlated with COVID-19 daily incidence, with 12 or 14 days of delay (Pearson's r = 0.978, 0.978 and 0.979, respectively) and deaths with 19 days of delay (Pearson's r = 0.963, 0.958 and 0.970, respectively). The 7-day follow-up with prospectively collected data showed no significant correlations of the observed data with the predicted daily new cases or daily deaths, using search interest of COVID, COVID heart, and COVID pneumonia.

BackgroundAlthough exempt, many pregnant Muslim women partake in the daily fast during daylight hours during the month of Ramadan. In other contexts an impoverished diet during pregnancy impacts on birth weight. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether Ramadan fasting by pregnant women affects perinatal outcomes. Primary outcomes investigated were perinatal mortality, preterm birth and small for gestational age (SGA) infants. Secondary outcomes investigated were stillbirth, neonatal death, maternal death, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, congenital abnormalities, serious neonatal morbidity, birth weight, preterm birth and placental weight.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Health Management Information Consortium and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. Studies from any year were eligible. Studies reporting predefined perinatal outcomes in pregnancies exposed to Ramadan fasting were included. Cohort studies with no comparator group or that considered fasting outside pregnancy were excluded, as were studies assuming fasting practice based solely upon family name. Quality of included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies. Analyses were performed in STATA.ResultsFrom 375 records, 22 studies of 31,374 pregnancies were included, of which 18,920 pregnancies were exposed to Ramadan fasting. Birth weight was reported in 21 studies and was not affected by maternal fasting (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05). Placental weight was significantly lower in fasting mothers (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -0.97 to  -0.90), although this observation was dominated by a single large study. No data were presented for perinatal mortality. Ramadan fasting had no effect on preterm delivery (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.37) based on 5600 pregnancies (1193 exposed to Ramadan fasting).ConclusionsRamadan fasting does not adversely affect birth weight although there is insufficient evidence regarding potential effects on other perinatal outcomes. Further studies are needed to accurately determine whether Ramadan fasting is associated with adverse maternal or neonatal outcome.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-2048-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.