Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jun 25;16(6):e0253767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253767

Improved outcomes over time for adult COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure

Eric O Yeates 1,*,#, Jeffry Nahmias 1,, Justine Chinn 1,, Brittany Sullivan 1, Stephen Stopenski 1, Alpesh N Amin 2, Ninh T Nguyen 1,#
Editor: Robert Jeenchen Chen3
PMCID: PMC8232521  PMID: 34170950

Abstract

Background

COVID-19’s pulmonary manifestations are broad, ranging from pneumonia with no supplemental oxygen requirements to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with acute respiratory failure (ARF). In response, new oxygenation strategies and therapeutics have been developed, but their large-scale effects on outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine the trends in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and cost over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed ARDS or ARF.

Methods and findings

The Vizient Clinical Data Base, a national database comprised of administrative, clinical, and financial data from academic medical centers, was queried for patients ≥ 18-years-old with COVID-19 and either ARDS or ARF admitted between 3/2020-8/2020. Demographics, mechanical ventilation, length of stay, total cost, mortality, and discharge status were collected. Mann-Kendall tests were used to assess for significant monotonic trends in total cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over time. Chi-square tests were used to compare mortality rates between March-May and June-August.

110,223 adult patients with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF were identified. Mean length of stay was 12.1±13.3 days and mean total cost was $35,991±32,496. Mechanical ventilation rates were 34.1% and in-hospital mortality was 22.5%. Mean cost trended downward over time (p = 0.02) from $55,275 (March) to $18,211 (August). Mechanical ventilation rates trended down (p<0.01) from 53.8% (March) to 20.3% (August). Overall mortality rates also decreased (p<0.01) from 28.4% (March) to 13.7% (August). Mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients were similar over time (p = 0.45), but mortality in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation decreased from March-May compared to June-July (13.5% vs 4.6%, p<0.01).

Conclusions

This study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US.

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), implicated in COVID-19, has been discovered to inflict an extremely wide spectrum of disease severity and manifestations [1, 2]. COVID-19’s pulmonary manifestations are equally as broad, ranging from pneumonia with no supplemental oxygen requirements to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with acute respiratory failure (ARF) [3]. In response to this novel spectrum of pulmonary disease, new oxygenation strategies and therapeutics have been developed at impressive speed. These include guidelines on prone positioning and high-flow nasal cannula, Remdesivir, corticosteroids, and convalescent plasma [49].

However, the large-scale effects of these advancements on outcomes in COVID-19 patients in the United States (US) remain unknown. Though recent studies have begun to describe these outcomes, they include patients spanning the full spectrum of COVID-19 disease, thereby evaluating a heterogeneous population [10, 11]. To our knowledge, no large study to date has described the changes in outcomes over time for COVID-19 patients with severe pulmonary disease.

Therefore, we aimed to examine the trends in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and cost over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed ARDS or ARF. We hypothesized a downward trend in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and total cost over time.

Materials and methods

The Vizient Clinical Data Base (VCDB), a US national database comprised of administrative, clinical, and financial data from academic and affiliated community medical centers, was queried for patients greater than 18 years old with an ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (UO7.1) and either ARDS (J80) or ARF (J960, J9600, J9601, J9602) admitted between March and August 2020. The Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Irvine deemed this study exempt from the need for consent as VCDB is deidentified.

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation and total cost. Additional outcomes measured included length of stay and discharge status (including home, expired, skilled nursing facility, long-term care hospital, other facility, and hospice). Age, sex, race, and comorbidities (including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, congestive heart failure, renal failure, and anemia) were also collected. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers of patients with percentages and continuous variables were expressed as means with standard deviations.

Mann-Kendall tests were used to assess for significant monotonic trends in total cost, mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality rates over time. Mortality rates were further delineated into rates of those who were mechanically ventilated and those who were not. Mann-Kendall tests were again used to assess for trends within these two mortality rates. Additionally, Chi-square tests were used to compare mortality rates between March-May and June-August. Finally, the percentage of COVID-19 positive patients out of all patients admitted each month was calculated to estimate the burden of disease on the hospital system over time. A Pearson correlation test was performed between these percentages and mortality rates over time. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analysis was performed using R 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020).

Results

Demographics and comorbidities

110,223 adult patients with COVID-19 and ARDS or ARF were identified. 42.8% were male, 43.3% were Caucasian, 26.2% were African American, and 3.9% were Asian. The most common age groups were 51–64 years old (29.8%) and greater than 75 years old (25.1%). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (66.0%), diabetes (42.4%), and obesity (32.9%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographics and comorbidities of adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

Characteristic N = 110,223
Gender, No. (%)
 • Male 63,003 (57.2)
 • Female 47,220 (42.8)
Race, No. (%)
 • Caucasian 47,781 (43.3)
 • African American 28,851 (26.2)
 • Asian 4,332 (3.9)
 • Other/unavailable/unknown 29,259 (26.5)
Age, No. (%)
 • 18–30 years 3,902 (3.5)
 • 31–50 years 22,112 (20.1)
 • 51–64 years 32,876 (29.8)
 • 65–74 years 23,646 (21.5)
 • ≥ 75 years 27,687 (25.1)
Comorbidities, No. (%)
 • Hypertension 72,743 (66.0)
 • Diabetes 46,745 (42.4)
 • Obesity 36,228 (32.9)
 • Congestive heart failure 17,352 (15.7)
 • Renal failure 24,023 (21.8)
 • Anemia 26,180 (23.8)

Outcomes

Mean length of stay (LOS) was 12.1 ± 13.3 days and mean total cost was $35,991 ± 32,496. Mechanical ventilation rates were 34.1% and in-hospital mortality was 22.5%. Mortality rates ranged from 5.6% for those 18–30 years old to 38.8% for those greater than 75 years old. 51.4% of patients were discharged to home, 20.4% to a skilled nursing facility/long-term care hospital/other facility, and 3.7% to hospice (Table 2).

Table 2. Outcomes of adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

Outcome N = 110,223
Mean length of stay (days) 12.1 ± 13.3
Mean total cost ($) 35,991 ± 32,496
Mechanical ventilation, No. (%) 37570 (34.1)
In-hospital mortality, No. (%) 24,799 (22.5)
In-hospital mortality according to age, No. (%)
 • 18–30 years 220 of 3,902 (5.6)
 • 31–50 years 1,854 of 22,112 (8.4)
 • 51–64 years 5,435 of 32,876 (16.5)
 • 65–74 years 6,545 of 23,646 (27.7)
 • ≥ 75 years 10,745 of 27,687 (38.8)
Discharge status, No. (%)
 • Home 56,613 (51.4)
 • Expired 24,799 (22.5)
 • Skilled nursing facility/long-term care hospital/other facility 22,463 (20.4)
 • Hospice 4,031 (3.7)
 • Unknown and othersa 2317 (2.1)

aOthers: left against medical advice, transferred to other hospitals or healthcare institution not defined.

Cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over time

Mean total cost trended downward over time (p = 0.02) from $55,275 in March to $18,211 in August. Mechanical ventilation rates trended down (p<0.01) from 53.8% in March to 20.3% in August. Overall mortality rates also decreased (p<0.01) from 28.4% in March to 13.7% in August (Table 3) (Figs 1 and 2).

Table 3. Cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over time in adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

Outcomes March (n = 12,417) April (n = 39,742) May (n = 16,966) June (n = 12,232) July (n = 19,679) August (n = 8,726) p-value
Mean total cost ($) 55,275 36,607 37,874 35,161 28,690 18,211 0.02
Mortality, No. (%) 3,527 (28.4) 10,912 (27.5) 3,708 (21.9) 2,062 (16.9) 3,274 (16.6) 1,194 (13.7) <0.01
Without mechanical ventilation, No. (%) 5,738 (46.2) 25,808 (64.9) 11,127 (65.6) 8,307 (67.9) 14,423 (73.3) 6,951 (79.7) <0.01
 • Mortality, No. (%) 693 (12.1) 3,975 (15.4) 1,091 (9.8) 385 (4.6) 648 (4.5) 347 (5.0) 0.13
Mechanical ventilation, No. (%) 6,679 (53.8) 13,934 (35.1) 5,839 (34.4) 3,925 (32.1) 5,256 (26.7) 1,775 (20.3) <0.01
 • Mortality, No. (%) 2,834 (42.4) 6,937 (49.8) 2,617 (44.8) 1,677 (42.7) 2,626 (50.0) 847 (47.7) 0.45

Fig 1. Mortality rates over time in adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

Fig 1

Mortality rates over time from March 2020 to August 2020 by mechanical ventilation status. “Overall” includes all patients, “Intubated” includes only patients that required mechanical ventilation, and “Not intubated” includes only patients that did not require mechanical ventilation during their hospital stay.

Fig 2. Mechanical ventilation rates over time in adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

Fig 2

Mechanical ventilation rates over time from March 2020 to August 2020.

Mortality over time in mechanically ventilated and non-mechanically ventilated patients

Mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients did not consistently downtrend over time (p = 0.45) (Table 3) (Fig 1). Mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients were similar from March-May compared to June-July (46.8% vs 47.0%, p = 0.76).

Mortality rates in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation did not consistently downtrend over time (p = 0.13) (Table 3) (Fig 1). However, mortality rates in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation decreased from March-May compared to June-July (13.5% vs 4.6%, p<0.01).

Proportion of COVID-19 positive admissions over time

The percentage of COVID-19 positive patients out of all patients admitted was 3.0% in March, 14.5% in April, 6.5% in May, 4.3% in June, 6.2% in July, 4.0% in August. A Pearson correlation test between these and mortality rates over the same months found no significant correlation (correlation coefficient = 0.43, p = 0.40).

Discussion

Improved management strategies and novel therapeutics have been rapidly developed in the US for COVID-19 patients with ARDS or ARF, but nationwide changes in outcomes have not yet been described in this critically ill cohort. This large national study of adult patients with COVID-19 and ARDS or ARF found a significant decrease in rates of mechanical ventilation, mortality, and cost over time. More specifically, we identified a decrease in mortality for patients not receiving mechanical ventilation.

A large percentage of critically ill COVID-19 patients required mechanical ventilation early in the pandemic, but a number of novel therapeutics and early oxygenation strategies (i.e. high flow nasal cannula treatment and early prone positioning) provided an impetus to reduce this need over the subsequent months of the pandemic [12, 13]. This study demonstrated that rates of mechanical ventilation in ARDS or ARF patients trended downward from March to August 2020 in the US. This may in part be due to novel therapeutics, including Remedesivir and corticosteroids, which may decrease the need for intubation [58]. Additionally, we suspect that prone positioning, high-flow nasal cannula, and a change in intubation triggers have also contributed to this noticeable reduction in mechanical ventilation rates [4, 14, 15].

We similarly identified a decrease in mortality over time. Though improved mortality compared to the start of the pandemic has been noted in previous studies, we now confirm this in a large, critically ill COVID-19 cohort in the United States [10, 11]. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the change in mortality appears to originate from patients who were not mechanically ventilated, as the mortality in mechanically ventilated patients remained stable throughout the study period. This improvement is likely multifactorial but may be related to the novel use of corticosteroids and the increased adoption of non-invasive supplemental treatments including early prone positioning and high-flow nasal cannula [57]. These findings seem to also cast doubt that we have substantially improved mechanical ventilation strategies or made significant progress in treating the most severe cases of COVID-19. Another interesting finding was that the degree of burden of COVID-19 positive patients on the hospital system was not correlated with mortality. This suggests that the additional stress on the hospital system may not have worsened patient outcomes, however, we were unable to control for a number of confounding factors (i.e. novel treatments for COVID-19).

The COVID-19 pandemic could result in over 150 billion dollars in direct medical costs in the US due to the large number of infections and their poor outcomes [16, 17]. However, this study identified a decrease in mean total cost over the first 6 months of the pandemic in adult patients with COVID-19 and ARDS or ARF. This likely has a strong relationship to the decreased use of mechanical ventilation but may also be related to decreased length of stay and more efficient use of hospital resources [18]. Regardless, it is encouraging that, along with a significant improvement in patient outcomes, there has also been a reduction in the cost of care and burden on the US medical system throughout the pandemic.

This study has a number of limitations. Firstly, patients with ARDS or ARF were identified were using ICD-10 codes and were therefore subject to the discretion of many different clinicians. As the definition of ARDS in the context of COVID-19 was not initially widely agreed upon, it is possible that we were missing patients of interest in this study [3]. Next, we did not have access to patient-level data which made us unable to control for confounders (i.e. laboratory values, imaging findings, and baseline functional status) that may have been the true cause for the trends (or lack of trends) we identified in this study. Our lack of patient-level data also prevented us from attributing the improved outcomes (i.e. mortality, mechanical ventilation rates, and cost) to any specific intervention (i.e. Remedesivir, corticosteroids, and prone positioning). Finally, it is also possible the patients most susceptible to severe COVID-19 died early during the pandemic and were therefore overrepresented in the earlier months, artificially improving outcomes in the later months [19, 20].

Despite these limitations, this study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US. This highlights the importance of stalling rapid spread of a pandemic to allow improved treatment and outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data for mechanical ventilation and mortality over time in adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its S1 File.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Lai CC, Liu YH, Wang CY, Wang YH, Hsueh SC, Yen MY, et al. Asymptomatic carrier state, acute respiratory disease, and pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Facts and myths. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2020. Jun;53(3):404–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.02.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gupta A, Madhavan MV, Sehgal K, Nair N, Mahajan S, Sehrawat TS, et al. Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020. Jul;26(7):1017–1032. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0968-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fan E, Beitler JR, Brochard L, Calfee CS, Ferguson ND, Slutsky, et al. COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: is a different approach to management warranted? Lancet Respir Med. 2020. Aug;8(8):816–821. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30304-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Poston JT, Patel BK, Davis AM. Management of Critically Ill Adults With COVID-19. JAMA. 2020. May;323(18):1839–1841. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Prescott HC, Rice TW. Corticosteroids in COVID-19 ARDS: Evidence and Hope During the Pandemic. JAMA. 2020. Oct;324(13):1292–1295. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.16747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, Mafham M, Bell JL, Linsell L, et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021. Feb;384(8):693–704. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ho KS, Narasimhan B, Difabrizio L, Rogers L, Bose S, Li L, et al. Impact of corticosteroids in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2021. Apr;8(1):e000766. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, Mehta AK, Zingman BS, Kalil AC, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19—Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020. Nov;383(19):1813–1826. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Katz LM. (A Little) Clarity on Convalescent Plasma for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021. Feb;384(7):666–668. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2035678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nguyen NT, Chinn J, Nahmias J, Yuen S, Kirby KA, Hohmann S, et al. Outcomes and Mortality Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 at US Medical Centers. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. Mar;4(3):e210417. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Armstrong RA, Kane AD, Cook TM. Outcomes from intensive care in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Anaesthesia. 2020. Oct;75(10):1340–1349. doi: 10.1111/anae.15201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Myers LC, Parodi SM, Escobar GJ, Liu VX. Characteristics of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 in an Integrated Health Care System in California. JAMA. 2020. Jun;323(21):2195–2198. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.7202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Luo M, Cao S, Wei L, Zhao X, Gao F, Li S, et al. Intubation, mortality, and risk factors in critically ill Covid-19 patients: A pilot study. J Clin Anesth. 2020. Dec;67:110039. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ding L, Wang L, Ma W, He H. Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2020. Jan;24(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2738-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pérez-Nieto OR, Guerrero-Gutiérrez MA, Deloya-Tomas E, Ñamendys-Silva SA. Prone positioning combined with high-flow nasal cannula in severe noninfectious ARDS. Crit Care. 2020. Mar;24(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2821-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bartsch SM, Ferguson MC, McKinnell JA, O’Shea KJ, Wedlock PT, Siegmund SS, et al. The Potential Health Care Costs And Resource Use Associated With COVID-19 In The United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020. Jun;39(6):927–935. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Noh J, Danuser G. Estimation of the fraction of COVID-19 infected people in U.S. states and countries worldwide. PLoS One. 2021. Feb;16(2):e0246772. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Horwitz LI, Jones SA, Cerfolio RJ, Francois F, Greco J, Rudy B, et al. Trends in COVID-19 Risk-Adjusted Mortality Rates. J Hosp Med. 2021. Feb;16(2):90–92. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Biswas M, Rahaman S, Biswas TK, Haque Z, Ibrahim B. Association of Sex, Age, and Comorbidities with Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Intervirology. 2020. Dec;1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Barek MA, Aziz MA, Islam MS. Impact of age, sex, comorbidities and clinical symptoms on the severity of COVID-19 cases: A meta-analysis with 55 studies and 10014 cases. Heliyon. 2020. Dec;6(12):e05684. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Robert Jeenchen Chen

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

31 May 2021

PONE-D-21-09664

Improved outcomes over time for adult COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yeates,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please revise accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 15 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:

Alpesh Amin reported serving as PI or co-I of clinical trials sponsored by NIH/NIAID, NeuroRx Pharma, Pulmotect, Blade Therpeutics, Novartis, Takeda, Humanigen, Eli Lilly, PTC Therapeutics, OctaPharma, Fulcrum Therapeutics, Alexion. He has served as speaker and/or consultant for BMS, Pfizer, BI, Portola, Sunovion, Mylan, Salix, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Nabriva, Paratek, Bayer, Tetraphase, Achogen LaJolla, Millenium, HeartRite, Aseptiscope, Sprightly.

Ninh Nguyen reported serving as a speaker for Olympus and Endogastric Solutions.].

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors describe outcomes over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure. This study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US. This is interesting and valuable to see the result in gradual reductions of mortality rates and costs with improvement treatment strategies and skills because no other research like this has been performed.

Are there any other factors that decreased the case mortality rate other than the improvement of medical technology? Reducing the burden on medical staff may be one of the factors that lowered the case mortality rate.

Is it possible to find out how many COVID-19 patients of all inpatients? If the authors knew the proportion of COVID-19 patients admitted to the facilities, the authors could infer how much burden has been placed on the medical facilities.

Reviewer #2: Eric O Yeates, et al. claims that mortality, cost, and the rate of mechanical ventilation of patients of COVID-19 with ARDS or ARF during March-May 2020 were significantly decreased compared with those during June-July 2020 in the USA. I am one of clinicians who have treated hundreds of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the country other than the US. The author’s statement is compatible with my clinical impression in my country. I agree with the most of their opinion. They focused on the patients with COVID-19 who experienced ARF or ARDS. Data focusing on the population are novel and interesting. However, there are a lot of limitations in the research, as they mention. Discussion mostly consisted of their assumption because they did not directly analyze the association between each factor (respiratory strategies, corticosteroid, or anti-viral medications) and the outcome. They only compared trends of March-May to those of June-July. It is the biggest limitation.

Major comments

1. As I pointed out, the author did not directly analyze the association between each factor and the outcome, such as mortality, ventilation-rate and the cost. It is the biggest limitation. So, they should mention as one of the study limitations.

2. Page 8 Line 131, I think that mortality rates in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation were similar over time, although the statistical significance was not shown. None-statistical significance dose not mean the similar. For example, I think that mortality in March (12.1%) is not similar to that in July (4.5%). Please revise the sentence.

3. Page 8 Line 147 to Line148, the authors should include corticosteroid into one of novel therapeutics. Corticosteroid is the most effective therapeutic agent against COVID-19. It has strong evidence.

Minor comments

1. Page 4 line 48, I think that the COVID-19 virus is correct medical jargon. SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 25;16(6):e0253767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253767.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Jun 2021

Reviewers' comments:

--------

Reviewer #1: The authors describe outcomes over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure. This study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US. This is interesting and valuable to see the result in gradual reductions of mortality rates and costs with improvement treatment strategies and skills because no other research like this has been performed.

Are there any other factors that decreased the case mortality rate other than the improvement of medical technology? Reducing the burden on medical staff may be one of the factors that lowered the case mortality rate.

Is it possible to find out how many COVID-19 patients of all inpatients? If the authors knew the proportion of COVID-19 patients admitted to the facilities, the authors could infer how much burden has been placed on the medical facilities.

Author response: Thank you for these insightful comments. The burden on medical staff and its effects on outcomes is something that has been commonly discussed, but not yet proven to our knowledge. To address this, we identified the percentage of COVID-19 positive patients out of all patients admitted each month and then performed a correlation test between those percentages and mortality. Interestingly, we did not find a correlation, suggesting that the additional stress on the hospital system may not have worsened patient outcomes. However, we admit there are a number of confounding factors not controlled for. We have now added the following interesting points into our Methods, Results, and Discussion:

“Finally, the percentage of COVID-19 positive patients out of all patients admitted each month was calculated to estimate the burden of disease on the hospital system over time. A Pearson correlation test was performed between these percentages and mortality rates over time.”

“The percentage of COVID-19 positive patients out of all patients admitted was 3.0% in March, 14.5% in April, 6.5% in May, 4.3% in June, 6.2% in July, 4.0% in August. A Pearson correlation test between these and mortality rates over the same months found no significant correlation (correlation coefficient=0.43, p=0.40).”

“Another interesting finding was that the degree of burden of COVID-19 positive patients on the hospital system was not correlated with mortality. This suggests that the additional stress on the hospital system may not have worsened patient outcomes, however, we were unable to control for a number of confounding factors (i.e. novel treatments for COVID-19).”

--------

Reviewer #2: Eric O Yeates, et al. claims that mortality, cost, and the rate of mechanical ventilation of patients of COVID-19 with ARDS or ARF during March-May 2020 were significantly decreased compared with those during June-July 2020 in the USA. I am one of clinicians who have treated hundreds of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the country other than the US. The author’s statement is compatible with my clinical impression in my country. I agree with the most of their opinion. They focused on the patients with COVID-19 who experienced ARF or ARDS. Data focusing on the population are novel and interesting. However, there are a lot of limitations in the research, as they mention. Discussion mostly consisted of their assumption because they did not directly analyze the association between each factor (respiratory strategies, corticosteroid, or anti-viral medications) and the outcome. They only compared trends of March-May to those of June-July. It is the biggest limitation.

Major comments

1. As I pointed out, the author did not directly analyze the association between each factor and the outcome, such as mortality, ventilation-rate and the cost. It is the biggest limitation. So, they should mention as one of the study limitations.

Author response: Thank you for this point. We agree this is one of the biggest limitations of the database we used and this study. We have now added the following to our Discussion to highlight this limitation:

“Our lack of patient-level data also prevented us from attributing the improved outcomes (i.e. mortality, mechanical ventilation rates, and cost) to any specific intervention (i.e. Remedesivir, corticosteroids, and prone positioning).”

2. Page 8 Line 131, I think that mortality rates in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation were similar over time, although the statistical significance was not shown. None-statistical significance dose not mean the similar. For example, I think that mortality in March (12.1%) is not similar to that in July (4.5%). Please revise the sentence.

Author response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree that this wording is misleading and have now changed this section of the Results to the following:

“Mortality rates in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation did not consistently downtrend over time.”

3. Page 8 Line 147 to Line148, the authors should include corticosteroid into one of novel therapeutics. Corticosteroid is the most effective therapeutic agent against COVID-19. It has strong evidence.

Author response: Thank you for pointing out this omission. We have now added corticosteroids to this portion of the Discussion and have also added two additional references on the topic.

“This may in part be due to novel therapeutics, including Remedesivir and corticosteroids, which may decrease the need for intubation [5-8].”

Minor comments

1. Page 4 line 48, I think that the COVID-19 virus is correct medical jargon. SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate.

Author response: Thank you. We have now changed this sentence to the following:

“The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), implicated in COVID-19, has been discovered to inflict an extremely wide spectrum of disease severity and manifestations.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS_ONE_response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Robert Jeenchen Chen

14 Jun 2021

Improved outcomes over time for adult COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure

PONE-D-21-09664R1

Dear Dr. Yeates,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Robert Jeenchen Chen

18 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-09664R1

Improved outcomes over time for adult COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure

Dear Dr. Yeates:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Raw data for mechanical ventilation and mortality over time in adults with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS_ONE_response_to_reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its S1 File.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES