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.

Critically ill patients manifest many of the same immune features seen in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including both “cytokine storm” and “immune suppression.” However, direct comparisons of molecular and cellular profiles between contemporaneously enrolled critically ill patients with and without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited. We sought to identify immune signatures specifically enriched in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with patients without COVID-19. We enrolled a multisite prospective cohort of patients admitted under suspicion for COVID-19, who were then determined to be SARS-CoV-2-positive ( n = 204) or -negative ( n = 122). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had higher plasma levels of CXCL10, sPD-L1, IFN-γ, CCL26, C-reactive protein (CRP), and TNF-α relative to SARS-CoV-2-negative patients adjusting for demographics and severity of illness (Bonferroni P value < 0.05). In contrast, the levels of IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-17A were not significantly different between the two groups. In SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, higher plasma levels of sPD-L1 and TNF-α were associated with fewer ventilator-free days (VFDs) and higher mortality rates (Bonferroni P value < 0.05). Lymphocyte chemoattractants such as CCL17 were associated with more severe respiratory failure in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, but less severe respiratory failure in SARS-CoV-2-negative patients ( P value for interaction < 0.01). Circulating T cells and monocytes from SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects were hyporesponsive to in vitro stimulation compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative subjects. Critically ill SARS-CoV-2-positive patients exhibit an immune signature of high interferon-induced lymphocyte chemoattractants (e.g., CXCL10 and CCL17) and immune cell hyporesponsiveness when directly compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. This suggests a specific role for T-cell migration coupled with an immune-checkpoint regulatory response in COVID-19-related critical illness.

ImportanceIt is not clear which severely injured patients with hemorrhagic shock may benefit most from a 1:1:1 vs 1:1:2 (plasma:platelets:red blood cells) resuscitation strategy. Identification of trauma molecular endotypes may reveal subgroups of patients with differential treatment response to various resuscitation strategies.ObjectiveTo derive trauma endotypes (TEs) from molecular data and determine whether these endotypes are associated with mortality and differential treatment response to 1:1:1 vs 1:1:2 resuscitation strategies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a secondary analysis of the Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) randomized clinical trial. The study cohort included individuals with severe injury from 12 North American trauma centers. The cohort was taken from the participants in the PROPPR trial who had complete plasma biomarker data available. Study data were analyzed on August 2, 2021, to October 25, 2022.ExposuresTEs identified by K-means clustering of plasma biomarkers collected at hospital arrival.Main Outcomes and MeasuresAn association between TEs and 30-day mortality was tested using multivariable relative risk (RR) regression adjusting for age, sex, trauma center, mechanism of injury, and injury severity score (ISS). Differential treatment response to transfusion strategy was assessed using an RR regression model for 30-day mortality by incorporating an interaction term for the product of endotype and treatment group adjusting for age, sex, trauma center, mechanism of injury, and ISS.ResultsA total of 478 participants (median [IQR] age, 34.5 [25-51] years; 384 male [80%]) of the 680 participants in the PROPPR trial were included in this study analysis. A 2-class model that had optimal performance in K-means clustering was found. TE-1 (n = 270) was characterized by higher plasma concentrations of inflammatory biomarkers (eg, interleukin 8 and tumor necrosis factor α) and significantly higher 30-day mortality compared with TE-2 (n = 208). There was a significant interaction between treatment arm and TE for 30-day mortality. Mortality in TE-1 was 28.6% with 1:1:2 treatment vs 32.6% with 1:1:1 treatment, whereas mortality in TE-2 was 24.5% with 1:1:2 treatment vs 7.3% with 1:1:1 treatment (P for interaction = .001).Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this secondary analysis suggest that endotypes derived from plasma biomarkers in trauma patients at hospital arrival were associated with a differential response to 1:1:1 vs 1:1:2 resuscitation strategies in trauma patients with severe injury. These findings support the concept of molecular heterogeneity in critically ill trauma populations and have implications for tailoring therapy for patients at high risk for adverse outcomes.