A standardized protocol using clinical adjudication to define true infection status in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infections and/or sepsis

In absence of a "gold standard", a standardized clinical adjudication process was developed for a registrational trial of a transcriptomic host response (HR) test. Two physicians independently reviewed clinical data to adjudicate presence and source of bacterial and viral infections in emergency department patients. Discordant cases were resolved by a third physician. Agreement among 955 cases was 74.1% (708/955) for bacterial, 75.6% (722/955) for viral infections, and 71.2% (680/955) overall. Most discordances were minor (85.2%; 409/480) versus moderate (11.7%; 56/480) or complete (3.3%; 16/480). Concordance levels were lowest for bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (8.2%) and for viral respiratory tract infections (4.5%). This robust adjudication process can be used to evaluate HR tests and other diagnostics by regulatory agencies and for educating clinicians, laboratorians, and clinical researchers. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04094818. SUMMARY: Without a gold standard for evaluating host response tests, clinical adjudication is a robust reference standard that is essential to determine the true infection status in diagnostic registrational clinical studies.

Metabolic Manipulation and Therapeutic Hypothermia

Hypothermia has multiple physiological effects, including decreasing metabolic rate and oxygen consumption (VO2). There are few human data about the magnitude of change in VO2 with decreases in core temperature. We aimed to quantify to magnitude of reduction in resting VO2 as we reduced core temperature in lightly sedated healthy individuals. After informed consent and physical screening, we cooled participants by rapidly infusing 20 mL/kg of cold (4°C) saline intravenously and placing surface cooling pads on the torso. We attempted to suppress shivering using a 1 mcg/kg intravenous bolus of dexmedetomidine followed by titrated infusion at 1.0 to 1.5 μg/(kg·h). We measured resting metabolic rate VO2 through indirect calorimetry at baseline (37°C) and at 36°C, 35°C, 34°C, and 33°C. Nine participants had mean age 30 (standard deviation 10) years and 7 (78%) were male. Baseline VO2 was 3.36 mL/(kg·min) (interquartile range 2.98-3.76) mL/(kg·min). VO2 was associated with core temperature and declined with each degree decrease in core temperature, unless shivering occurred. Over the entire range from 37°C to 33°C, median VO2 declined 0.7 mL/(kg·min) (20.8%) in the absence of shivering. The largest average decrease in VO2 per degree Celsius was by 0.46 mL/(kg·min) (13.7%) and occurred between 37°C and 36°C in the absence of shivering. After a participant developed shivering, core body temperature did not decrease further, and VO2 increased. In lightly sedated humans, metabolic rate decreases around 5.2% for each 1°C decrease in core temperature from 37°C to 33°C. Because the largest decrease in metabolic rate occurs between 37°C and 36°C, subclinical shivering or other homeostatic reflexes may be present at lower temperatures.

Effect of stomach inflation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation on return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Gastric inflation caused by excessive ventilation is a common complication of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Gastric inflation may further compromise ventilation via increases in intrathoracic pressure, leading to decreased venous return and cardiac output, which may impair out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes. The purpose of this study was to measure the gastric volume of OHCA patients using computed tomography (CT) scan images and evaluate the effect of gastric inflation on return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, CT scan was conducted after ROSC or immediately after death. Total gastric volume was measured. Primary outcome was ROSC. Achievement of ROSC was compared in the gastric distention group and the no gastric distention group; gastric distension was defined as total gastric volume in the ≥75th percentile. Additionally, factors associated with gastric distention were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 446 cases were enrolled in the study; 120 cases (27%) achieved ROSC. The median gastric volume was 400 ml for all OHCA subjects; 1068 ml in gastric distention group vs. 287 ml in no gastric distention group. There was no difference in ROSC between the groups (27/112 [24.1%] vs. 93/334 [27.8%], p = 0.440). Gastric distention did not have a significant impact, even after adjustments (adjusted odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [0.42-1.29]). Increased gastric volume was associated with longer emergency medical service activity time.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a median gastric volume of 400 ml in patients after OHCA resuscitation. In our setting, gastric distention did not prevent ROSC.

The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus for the management of hyper-responders in in vitro fertilization

PURPOSE

To provide agreed-upon guidelines on the management of a hyper-responsive patient undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS) METHODS: A literature search was performed regarding the management of hyper-response to OS for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 4 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥66% of the participants agreed, and ≤3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus. A total of 28/31 experts responded (selected for global coverage), anonymous to each other.

RESULTS

A total of 26/28 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. The target number of oocytes to be collected in a stimulation cycle for IVF in an anticipated hyper-responder is 15-19 (89.3% consensus). For a potential hyper-responder, it is preferable to achieve a hyper-response and freeze all than aim for a fresh transfer (71.4% consensus). GnRH agonists should be avoided for pituitary suppression in anticipated hyper-responders performing IVF (96.4% consensus). The preferred starting dose in the first IVF stimulation cycle of an anticipated hyper-responder of average weight is 150 IU/day (82.1% consensus). ICoasting in order to decrease the risk of OHSS should not be used (89.7% consensus). Metformin should be added before/during ovarian stimulation to anticipated hyper-responders only if the patient has PCOS and is insulin resistant (82.1% consensus). In the case of a hyper-response, a dopaminergic agent should be used only if hCG will be used as a trigger (including dual/double trigger) with or without a fresh transfer (67.9% consensus). After using a GnRH agonist trigger due to a perceived risk of OHSS, luteal phase rescue with hCG and an attempt of a fresh transfer is discouraged regardless of the number of oocytes collected (72.4% consensus). The choice of the FET protocol is not influenced by the fact that the patient is a hyper-responder (82.8% consensus). In the cases of freeze all due to OHSS risk, a FET cycle can be performed in the immediate first menstrual cycle (92.9% consensus).

CONCLUSION

These guidelines for the management of hyper-response can be useful for tailoring patient care and for harmonizing future research.

Evidence for Use of Validated Sepsis Screening Tools in the Prehospital Population: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Early detection and treatment of sepsis improves chances of survival; however, sepsis is often difficult to diagnose initially. This is especially true in the prehospital setting, where resources are scarce, yet time is of great significance. Early warning scores (EWS) based on vital signs were originally developed to guide medical practitioners in determining the degree of illness of a patient in the in-patient setting. These EWS were adapted for use in the prehospital setting to predict critical illness and sepsis. We performed a scoping review to evaluate the existing evidence for use of validated EWS to identify prehospital sepsis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using the CINAHL, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, and PubMed databases on September 1, 2022. Articles that examined the use of EWS to identify prehospital sepsis were included and assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in this review: one validation study, two prospective studies, two systematic reviews, and 18 retrospective studies. Study characteristics, classification statistics, and primary conclusions of each article were extracted and tabulated. Classification statistics varied markedly for prehospital sepsis identification across all included EWS: sensitivities ranged from 0.02-1.00, specificities from 0.07-1.00, and PPV and NPV from 0.19-0.98 and 0.32-1.00, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

All studies demonstrated inconsistency for the identification of prehospital sepsis. The variety of available EWS and study design heterogeneity suggest it is unlikely that new research can identify a single gold standard score. Based on our findings in this scoping review, we recommend future efforts focus on combining standardized prehospital care with clinical judgment to provide timely interventions for unstable patients where infection is considered a likely etiology, in addition to improving sepsis education for prehospital clinicians. At most, EWS can be used as an adjunct to these efforts, but they should not be relied on alone for prehospital sepsis identification.

Duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and phenotype of post-cardiac arrest brain injury

BACKGROUND

Patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest have variable severity of primary hypoxic ischemic brain injury (HIBI). Signatures of primary HIBI on brain imaging and electroencephalography (EEG) include diffuse cerebral edema and burst suppression with identical bursts (BSIB). We hypothesize distinct phenotypes of primary HIBI are associated with increasing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) duration.

METHODS

We identified from our prospective registry of both in-and out-of-hospital CA patients treated between January 2010 to January 2020 for this cohort study. We abstracted CPR duration, neurological examination, initial brain computed tomography gray to white ratio (GWR), and initial EEG pattern. We considered four phenotypes on presentation: awake; comatose with neither BSIB nor cerebral edema (non-malignant coma); BSIB; and cerebral edema (GWR ≤ 1.20). BSIB and cerebral edema were considered as non-mutually exclusive outcomes. We generated predicted probabilities of brain injury phenotype using localized regression.

RESULTS

We included 2,440 patients, of whom 545 (23%) were awake, 1,065 (44%) had non-malignant coma, 548 (23%) had BSIB and 438 (18%) had cerebral edema. Only 92 (4%) had both BSIB and edema. Median CPR duration was 16 [IQR 8-28] minutes. Median CPR duration increased in a stepwise manner across groups: awake 6 [3-13] minutes; non-malignant coma 15 [8-25] minutes; BSIB 21 [13-31] minutes; cerebral edema 32 [22-46] minutes. Predicted probability of phenotype changes over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Brain injury phenotype is related to CPR duration, which is a surrogate for severity of HIBI. The sequence of most likely primary HIBI phenotype with progressively longer CPR duration is awake, coma without BSIB or edema, BSIB, and finally cerebral edema.

The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus definition of hyper-responders for in-vitro fertilization

PURPOSE

To provide an agreed upon definition of hyper-response for women undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS)?

METHODS

A literature search was performed regarding hyper-response to ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 5 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements in the questionnaire for the first round of the Delphi consensus. The questionnaire was distributed to 31 experts, 22 of whom responded (with representation selected for global coverage), each anonymous to the others. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥ 66% of the participants agreed and ≤ 3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus.

RESULTS

17/18 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. (I) Definition of a hyper-response: Collection of ≥ 15 oocytes is characterized as a hyper-response (72.7% agreement). OHSS is not relevant for the definition of hyper-response if the number of collected oocytes is above a threshold (≥ 15) (77.3% agreement). The most important factor in defining a hyper-response during stimulation is the number of follicles ≥ 10 mm in mean diameter (86.4% agreement). (II) Risk factors for hyper-response: AMH values (95.5% agreement), AFC (95.5% agreement), patient's age (77.3% agreement) but not ovarian volume (72.7% agreement). In a patient without previous ovarian stimulation, the most important risk factor for a hyper-response is the antral follicular count (AFC) (68.2% agreement). In a patient without previous ovarian stimulation, when AMH and AFC are discordant, one suggesting a hyper-response and the other not, AFC is the more reliable marker (68.2% agreement). The lowest serum AMH value that would place one at risk for a hyper-response is ≥ 2 ng/ml (14.3 pmol/L) (72.7% agreement). The lowest AFC that would place one at risk for a hyper-response is ≥ 18 (81.8% agreement). Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) as per Rotterdam criteria are at a higher risk of hyper-response than women without PCOS with equivalent follicle counts and gonadotropin doses during ovarian stimulation for IVF (86.4% agreement). No consensus was reached regarding the number of growing follicles ≥ 10 mm that would define a hyper-response.

CONCLUSION

The definition of hyper-response and its risk factors can be useful for harmonizing research, improving understanding of the subject, and tailoring patient care.

Home oxygen therapy from the emergency department for COVID-19 an observational study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prescribing supplemental oxygen was a common reason for hospitalization of patients. We evaluated outcomes of COVID-19 patients discharged from the Emergency Department (ED) with home oxygen as part of a program to decrease hospital admissions.

METHODS

We retrospectively observed COVID-19 patients with an ED visit resulting in direct discharge or observation from April 2020 to January 2022 at 14 hospitals in a single healthcare system. The cohort included those discharged with new oxygen supplementation, a pulse oximeter, and return instructions. Our primary outcome was subsequent hospitalization or death outside the hospital within 30 days of ED or observation discharge.

RESULTS

Among 28,960 patients visiting the ED for COVID-19, providers admitted 11,508 (39.7%) to the hospital, placed 907 (3.1%) in observation status, and discharged 16,545 (57.1%) to home. A total of 614 COVID-19 patients (535 discharge to home and 97 observation unit) went home on new oxygen therapy. We observed the primary outcome in 151 (24.6%, CI 21.3-28.1%) patients. There were 148 (24.1%) patients subsequently hospitalized and 3 (0.5%) patients who died outside the hospital. The subsequent hospitalized mortality rate was 29.7% with 44 of the 148 patients admitted to the hospital dying. Mortality all cause at 30 days in the entire cohort was 7.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients discharged to home with new oxygen for COVID-19 safely avoid later hospitalization and few patients die within 30 days. This suggests the feasibility of the approach and offers support for ongoing research and implementation efforts.

Population-based hospitalization burden estimates for respiratory viruses, 2015-2019

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) result in millions of illnesses and hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations annually in the United States. The responsible viruses include influenza, parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human rhinoviruses. This study estimated the population-based hospitalization burden of those respiratory viruses (RVs) over 4 years, from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019, among adults ≥18 years of age for Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We used population-based statewide hospital discharge data, health system electronic medical record (EMR) data for RV tests, census data, and a published method to calculate burden.

RESULTS

Among 26,211 eligible RV tests, 67.6% were negative for any virus. The viruses detected were rhinovirus/enterovirus (2552; 30.1%), influenza A (2,299; 27.1%), RSV (1082; 12.7%), human metapneumovirus (832; 9.8%), parainfluenza (601; 7.1%), influenza B (565; 6.7%), non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (420; 4.9% 1.5 years of data available), and adenovirus (136; 1.6%). Most tests were among female (58%) and White (71%) patients with 60% of patients ≥65 years, 24% 50-64 years, and 16% 18-49 years. The annual burden ranged from 137-174/100,000 population for rhinovirus/enterovirus; 99-182/100,000 for influenza A; and 56-81/100,000 for RSV. Among adults <65 years, rhinovirus/enterovirus hospitalization burden was higher than influenza A; whereas the reverse was true for adults ≥65 years. RV hospitalization burden increased with increasing age.

CONCLUSIONS

These virus-specific ARI population-based hospital burden estimates showed significant non-influenza burden. These estimates can serve as the basis for several areas of research that are essential for setting funding priorities and guiding public health policy.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Importance

The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria.

Exposure

For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound.

Results

A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

P-353 Placenta previa in In Vitro Fertilization and unassisted pregnancies – is there a difference in perinatal outcomes and placental histology?

Study question

Why is In-vitro-fertilization (IVF) an independent risk factor for placenta previa (PP).

Summary answer

While PP in non-assisted pregnancies is probably associated with previous cesarean deliveries (CD), in IVF it is more “sporadic”, and may complicate any index pregnancy.

What is known already

PP is more prevalent following IVF pregnancies as compared with unassisted pregnancies, with an increased risk of three to six-fold according to some authors. The etiology for this increased risk in IVF pregnancies in unclear, and may be related to reproductive procedures performed or to subfertility characteristics which have led to IVF.

Study design, size, duration

A retrospective-cohort study of deliveries with PP between 2008 and 2021. A total of 182 pregnancies were included.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Placental histopathology, obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared between IVF and unassisted pregnancies. Included, were singleton deliveries complicated by PP at gestational weeks (GA)&gt; 24. Placental pathology was obtained utilizing the well-accepted Amsterdam criteria.

Main results and the role of chance

Out of 182 pregnancies which were included - 23 IVF pregnancies (IVF group) and 159 in the unassisted pregnancies (Control group). The control group was characterized by higher gravidity (p = 0.007) and parity (p &lt; 0.001), whereas the IVF group- by a higher rate of nulliparity (p &lt; 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (p = 0.04). A higher rate of patients with past CDs was noted in unassisted pregnancies, although not statistically significance (38.9% versus 21.7%, p = 0.10). There was a trend for a lower placental weight in the control group, and a higher incidence of placental weight below the 10thpercentile in this group (47.8% versus 13.9%, p = 0.001). No differences were noted in maternal and fetal vascular lesions. Nevertheless, IVF and unassisted pregnancies entail similar perinatal outcomes in cases of PP.

Limitations, reasons for caution

A major limitation was our small sample size in the IVF group. Despite a power calculation, larger study groups would have possibly allowed for the demonstration of additional differences in outcomes, including previous cesarean deliveries and placenta accreta. Moreover, this limitation prevented us from matching against possible cofounders.

Wider implications of the findings

While a growing proportion of pregnancies worldwide are conceived by IVF, possible iatrogenic side effects should be studied. As PP is of clinical importance, it is essential to diagnose it on time, as well as study the mechanisms and risk factors behind it, which could possibly help with its prevention.

Trial registration number

0282-20-WOMC

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial

Background

Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab.

Methods

A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.

Findings

Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30–1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72–1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab.

Interpretation

Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb.

Funding and registration

This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

O02 TRAIL, IP-10, CRP host-protein signature score distinguishes between viral and bacterial infection in sepsis patients

Background

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction syndrome caused by the body's response to infection. Timely and appropriate sepsis management, including appropriate treatment of bacterial infection, improves outcomes. MeMed BV (BV), a test for differentiating between bacterial and viral infection, is based on computational integration of the circulating levels of three proteins (TRAIL, IP-10, CRP). Here we evaluate its ability to differentiate bacterial from viral infection in sepsis patients.

Methods

This was a sub-analysis of sepsis patients recruited prospectively in the Apollo study (NCT04690569). Apollo eligibility required the attending physician's clinical suspicion of acute infection and reported fever. Sepsis was defined as two or more SIRS criteria and a suspected bacterial or viral infection classified by expert adjudication. A bacterial or viral classification required at least 2/3 experts to assign the same aetiology label with confidence ≥90% or all 3 assign with confidence ≥70%. BV was measured using a platform generating a bacterial likelihood score (0–100). Based on pre-defined thresholds, scores 0–34 indicated viral (or other non-bacterial) infection, scores 35 to 65 were equivocal and 66–100 indicated bacterial infection (or coinfection). BV performance was assessed against expert panel classifications.

Results

Seventy-nine out of 1016 eligible Apollo patients had missing heart rate and respiration rate data and a further 136 could not be classified by the experts. Out of the remaining 801 patients, 217 adults with median age of 41.8 years (IQR: 29.2–61) and 149 children with median age of 2.4 years (IQR: 1.4–5.4) had two or more SIRS criteria. A total of 119 patients had at least three SIRS criteria and 39.6% (145/366) of the patients were hospitalized with a median duration of 4 days (IQR: 3–6 days). In the sepsis cohort, 91 patients were classified as bacterial and 275 as viral. BV yielded sensitivity and specificity of 98.8% (95% CI: 93.6%–100%) and 89.7% (95% CI: 85.3%–93.2%) and NPV of 99.6% (95% CI: 97%–99.9%), outperforming PCT [cut-off 0.5 ng/mL; sensitivity 52.8% (95% CI: 42%–63.3%); specificity 86.2% (95% CI: 81.5%–90%); NPV 84.6% (95% CI: 81.5%–87.3%)].

Conclusions

BV accurately distinguished bacterial from viral infection in sepsis patients. This new triage tool has the potential to help with timely identification of bacterial infection, enabling prompt treatment.

Herman H, Farhi J, Raziel A, Weissman A. P–649 Should women receive luteal support following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study question

Should women receive luteal phase support (LPS) following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET)?

Summary answer

Progesterone LPS following NC-FET increases the live birth rate. There is no evidence to support the administration of hCG for LPS in these cases.

What is known already

Whether or not women should receive LPS following NC-FET is highly controversial. Previous studies have shown conflicting results.

Study design, size, duration

We conducted a systematic search of the literature published in Medline/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from January 2000 until December 2020. We included all original English, peer-reviewed articles, irrespective of study-design. The search strategy included keywords related to natural cycle frozen embryo transfer and luteal phase support. Studies reporting the results of artificial or stimulated FET cycles were excluded.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Our systematic search generated 395 records. After screening, eight studies were included in the review and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies (n = 858) used hCG, and 6 studies (n = 1507) used progesterone for luteal support. Four studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whereas the other four were historic cohort studies.

Main results and the role of chance

In a meta-analysis using random effects model, hCG administration for LPS did not increase the clinical pregnancy rate (two studies, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64–1.14). On the other hand, progesterone LPS was associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate (five studies, OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14–1.94), and a higher live birth rate (three studies, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.19–2.36).

Limitations, reasons for caution

There was large heterogeneity in progesterone dose and route of administration, as well as the methods used for ovulation detection and triggering. Moreover, only four studies were randomized. Finally, both studies examining the use of hCG for LPS were performed by the same group of researchers in a single center.

Wider implications of the findings: The available evidence indicates that progesterone administration for LPS is beneficial following natural cycle frozen embryo transfer. There is no evidence to support the administration of hCG for LPS in these cases. Additional Large RCTs are necessary in order to improve the quality of evidence and validate our findings.

Trial registration number

PROSPERO ID: CRD42020199045

Glycopyrrolate does not ameliorate hypothermia associated bradycardia in healthy individuals: A randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Hypothermia improves outcomes following ischemia-reperfusion injury. Shivering is common and can be mediated by agents such as dexmedetomidine. The combination of dexmedetomidine and hypothermia results in bradycardia. We hypothesized that glycopyrrolate would prevent bradycardia during dexmedetomidine-mediated hypothermia.

METHODS

We randomly assigned eight healthy subjects to premedication with a single 0.4 mg glycopyrrolate intravenous (IV) bolus, titrated glycopyrrolate (0.01 mg IV every 3 min as needed for heart rate <50), or no glycopyrrolate during three separate sessions of 3 h cooling. Following 1 mg/kg IV dexmedetomidine bolus, subjects received 20 ml/kg IV 4 °C saline and surface cooling (EM COOLS, Weinerdorf, Austria). We titrated dexmedetomidine infusion to suppress shivering but permit arousal to verbal stimuli. After 3 h of cooling, we allowed subjects to passively rewarm. We compared heart rate, core temperature, mean arterial blood pressure, perceived comfort and thermal sensation between groups using Kruskal-Wallis test and ANOVA.

RESULTS

Mean age was 27 (SD 6) years and most (N = 6, 75%) were male. Neither heart rate nor core temperature differed between the groups during maintenance of hypothermia (p > 0.05). Mean arterial blood pressure was higher in the glycopyrrolate bolus condition (p < 0.048). Thermal sensation was higher in the control condition than the glycopyrrolate bolus condition (p = 0.01). Bolus glycopyrrolate resulted in less discomfort than titrated glycopyrrolate (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Glycopyrrolate did not prevent the bradycardic response to hypothermia and dexmedetomidine. Mean arterial blood pressure was higher in subjects receiving a bolus of glycopyrrolate before induction of hypothermia. Bolus glycopyrrolate was associated with less intense thermal sensation and less discomfort during cooling.

The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization

Objectives

The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs.

Trial design

Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization

Participants

We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls.

Intervention and comparator

The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other.

When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab).

Main outcomes

The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration,

calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable – e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome.

Randomisation

We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size.

When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation.

Blinding (masking)

This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached.

Numbers to be randomised (sample size)

Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain.

Trial Status

Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021.

Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786. Registered March 10, 2021

Full protocol

The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05316-3.

Respiratory Viral Infections and Infection Prevention Practices among Women with Acute Respiratory Illness during Delivery Hospitalizations during the 2019-2020 Influenza Season

We conducted a cross-sectional study of pregnant women with acute respiratory illness during delivery hospitalizations in influenza season to describe clinical testing for respiratory viruses and infection prevention practices. Women had nasal swabs tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Among 91 enrolled women, 22 (24%) had clinical testing for influenza. Based on clinical and study testing combined, 41/91 (45%) women had samples positive for respiratory viruses. The most common virus was influenza (17/91, 19%); 53% (9/17) of influenza virus infections were identified through study testing alone. Only 16% of women were on droplet precautions. Peripartum respiratory infections may be underrecognized.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed.

Objective

To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality.

Results

Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Rationale and Design of ORCHID: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial of Hydroxychloroquine for Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19

The ORCHID (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease) trial is a multicenter, blinded, randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This document provides the rationale and background for the trial and highlights key design features. We discuss five novel challenges to the design and conduct of a large, multicenter, randomized trial during a pandemic, including 1) widespread, off-label use of the study drug before the availability of safety and efficacy data; 2) the need to adapt traditional procedures for documentation of informed consent during an infectious pandemic; 3) developing a flexible and robust Bayesian analysis incorporating significant uncertainty about the disease, outcomes, and treatment; 4) obtaining indistinguishable drug and placebo without delaying enrollment; and 5) rapidly obtaining administrative and regulatory approvals. Our goals in describing how the ORCHID trial progressed from study conception to enrollment of the first patient in 15 days are to inform the development of other high-quality, multicenter trials targeting COVID-19. We describe lessons learned to improve the efficiency of future clinical trials, particularly in the setting of pandemics. The ORCHID trial will provide high-quality, clinically relevant data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04332991).

Association of Initial Illness Severity and Outcomes After Cardiac Arrest With Targeted Temperature Management at 36 °C or 33 °C

IMPORTANCE

It is uncertain what the optimal target temperature is for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose following cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether illness severity is associated with changes in the association between target temperature and patient outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study compared outcomes for 1319 patients who were comatose after cardiac arrest at a single center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from January 2010 to December 2018. Initial illness severity was based on coma and organ failure scores, presence of severe cerebral edema, and presence of highly malignant electroencephalogram (EEG) after resuscitation.

EXPOSURE

TTM at 36 °C or 33 °C.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes were modified Rankin Scale and cerebral performance category.

RESULTS

Among 1319 patients, 728 (55.2%) had TTM at 33 °C (451 [62.0%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 61 [50-72] years) and 591 (44.8%) had TTM at 36 °C (353 [59.7%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 59 [48-69] years). Overall, 184 of 187 patients (98.4%) with severe cerebral edema died and 234 of 243 patients (96.3%) with highly malignant EEG died regardless of TTM strategy. Comparing TTM at 33 °C with TTM at 36 °C in 911 patients (69.1%) with neither severe cerebral edema nor highly malignant EEG, survival was lower in patients with mild to moderate coma and no shock (risk difference, -13.8%; 95% CI, -24.4% to -3.2%) but higher in patients with mild to moderate coma and cardiopulmonary failure (risk difference, 21.8%; 95% CI, 5.4% to 38.2%) or with severe coma (risk difference, 9.7%; 95% CI, 4.0% to 15.3%). Interactions were similar for functional outcomes. Most deaths (633 of 968 [65.4%]) resulted after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, TTM at 33 °C was associated with better survival than TTM at 36 °C among patients with the most severe post-cardiac arrest illness but without severe cerebral edema or malignant EEG. However, TTM at 36 °C was associated with better survival among patients with mild- to moderate-severity illness.