26
|
Linderman SL, Lai L, Bocangel Gamarra EL, Lau MS, Edupuganti S, Surie D, Tenforde MW, Chappell JD, Mohr NM, Gibbs KW, Steingrub JS, Exline MC, Shapiro NI, Frosch AE, Qadir N, Davis-Gardner ME, McElrath MJ, Lauring AS, Suthar MS, Patel MM, Self WH, Ahmed R. Neutralizing antibody responses in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron infection. J Clin Invest 2022; 132:164303. [PMID: 36256473 PMCID: PMC9711871 DOI: 10.1172/jci164303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
|
27
|
Abouzeid M, Alam HB, Arif H, Ballman K, Bennion R, Bernardi K, Burris D, Carter D, Chee P, Chen F, Chung B, Clark S, Cooper R, Cuschieri J, Deeney K, Dhanani N, Diflo T, Drake FT, Fairfield C, Farjah F, Ferrigno L, Fischkoff K, Fleischman R, Foster C, Gerry T, Gibbons M, Guiden M, Haas N, Hayes LA, Hayward A, Hennessey L, Hernandez M, Horvath KF, Howell EC, Hsu C, Johnson J, Johnsson B, Kim D, Kim D, Ko TC, Lavallee DC, Lew D, Mack J, MacKenzie D, Maggi J, Marquez S, Martinez R, McGrane K, Melis M, Miller K, Mireles D, Moran GJ, Morgan D, Morris A, Moser KM, Mount L, O'Connor K, Odom SR, Olavarria O, Olbrich N, Osborn S, Owens O, Park P, Parr Z, Parsons CS, Pathmarajah K, Patki D, Patton JH, Peacock RK, Pierce K, Pullar K, Putnam B, Rushing A, Sabbatini A, Saltzman D, Salzberg M, Schaetzel S, Schmidt PJ, Shah P, Shapiro NI, Sinha P, Skeete D, Skopin E, Sohn V, Spence LH, Steinberg S, Tichter A, Tschirhart J, Tudor B, Uribe L, VanDusen H, Wallick J, Weiss M, Wells S, Wiebusch A, Williams EJ, Winchell RJ, Wisler J, Wolfe B, Wolff E, Yealy DM, Yu J, Zhang IY, Voldal EC, Davidson GH, Liao JM, Thompson CM, Self WH, Kao LS, Cherry-Bukowiec J, Raghavendran K, Kaji AH, DeUgarte DA, Gonzalez E, Mandell KA, Ohe K, Siparsky N, Price TP, Evans DC, Victory J, Chiang W, Jones A, Kutcher ME, Ciomperlik H, Liang MK, Evans HL, Faine BA, Neufeld M, Sanchez SE, Krishnadasan A, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Lawrence SO, Monsell SE, Fannon EEC, Kessler LG, Talan DA, Flum DR. Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2022; 157:1080-1087. [PMID: 36197656 PMCID: PMC9535504 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.4765] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Importance A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. Objective To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Interventions Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Main Outcomes and Measures Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Conclusions and Relevance Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.
Collapse
|
28
|
Stephenson M, Olson SM, Self WH, Ginde AA, Mohr NM, Gaglani M, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Hager DN, Prekker ME, Gong MN, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Martin ET, Reddy R, Busse LW, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Qadir N, Mallow C, Kwon JH, Exline MC, Chappell JD, Lauring AS, Baughman A, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Lewis NM, Patel MM, Tenforde MW. Ascertainment of vaccination status by self-report versus source documentation: Impact on measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2022; 16:1101-1111. [PMID: 35818721 PMCID: PMC9350035 DOI: 10.1111/irv.13023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 05/06/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates. METHODS Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation. RESULTS Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only. CONCLUSIONS Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.
Collapse
|
29
|
Self WH, Wheeler AP, Stewart TG, Schrager H, Mallada J, Thomas CB, Cataldo VD, O'Neal HR, Shapiro NI, Higgins C, Ginde AA, Chauhan L, Johnson NJ, Henning DJ, Jaiswal SJ, Mammen MJ, Harris ES, Pannu SR, Laguio-Vila M, El Atrouni W, de Wit M, Hoda D, Cohn CS, McWilliams C, Shanholtz C, Jones AE, Raval JS, Mucha S, Ipe TS, Qiao X, Schrantz SJ, Shenoy A, Fremont RD, Brady EJ, Carnahan RH, Chappell JD, Crowe JE, Denison MR, Gilchuk P, Stevens LJ, Sutton RE, Thomsen I, Yoder SM, Bistran-Hall AJ, Casey JD, Lindsell CJ, Wang L, Pulley JM, Rhoads JP, Bernard GR, Rice TW. Neutralizing COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Chest 2022; 162:982-994. [PMID: 35780813 PMCID: PMC9247217 DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.06.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2022] [Revised: 05/21/2022] [Accepted: 06/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS gov.
Collapse
|
30
|
Surie D, Bonnell L, Adams K, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, Douin DJ, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Frosch AP, Erickson HL, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Khan A, Bender WS, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Kwon JH, Exline MC, Lauring AS, Shapiro NI, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Hart KW, Swan SA, Zhu Y, DeCuir J, Tenforde MW, Patel MM, McMorrow ML, Self WH. Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults During BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 Predominant Periods of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in the United States - IVY Network, 18 States, December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. MMWR. MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 2022; 71:1327-1334. [PMID: 36264830 PMCID: PMC9590291 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7142a3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
|
31
|
Adams K, Rhoads JP, Surie D, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, McNeal T, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Zepeski A, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Frosch AE, Exline MC, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Lauring AS, Khan A, Busse LW, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Chang SY, Mallow C, Kwon JH, Chappell JD, Halasa N, Grijalva CG, Lindsell CJ, Lester SN, Thornburg NJ, Park S, McMorrow ML, Patel MM, Tenforde MW, Self WH. Vaccine effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against covid-19 associated hospital admissions in the United States: living test negative design study. BMJ 2022; 379:e072065. [PMID: 36220174 PMCID: PMC9551237 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness of a primary covid-19 vaccine series plus booster doses with a primary series alone for the prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 in the United States. DESIGN Multicenter observational case-control study with a test negative design. SETTING Hospitals in 18 US states. PARTICIPANTS 4760 adults admitted to one of 21 hospitals with acute respiratory symptoms between 26 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, a period when the omicron variant was dominant. Participants included 2385 (50.1%) patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 (cases) and 2375 (49.9%) patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome was vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with covid-19 for a primary series plus booster doses and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. Vaccine effectiveness analyses were stratified by immunosuppression status (immunocompetent, immunocompromised). The primary analysis evaluated all covid-19 vaccine types combined, and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. RESULTS Overall, median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 52-75 years), 994 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 85 (1.8%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus two boosters, 1367 (28.7%) with a primary series plus one booster, and 1875 (39.3%) with a primary series alone, and 1433 (30.1%) were unvaccinated. Among immunocompetent participants, vaccine effectiveness for prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 for a primary series plus two boosters was 63% (95% confidence interval 37% to 78%), a primary series plus one booster was 65% (58% to 71%), and for a primary series alone was 37% (25% to 47%) (P<0.001 for the pooled boosted regimens compared with a primary series alone). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for a boosted regimen than for a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech): 73% (44% to 87%) for primary series plus two boosters, 64% (55% to 72%) for primary series plus one booster, and 36% (21% to 48%) for primary series alone (P<0.001); mRNA-1273 (Moderna): 68% (17% to 88%) for primary series plus two boosters, 65% (55% to 73%) for primary series plus one booster, and 41% (25% to 54%) for primary series alone (P=0.001)). Among immunocompromised patients, vaccine effectiveness for a primary series plus one booster was 69% (31% to 86%) and for a primary series alone was 49% (30% to 63%) (P=0.04). CONCLUSION During the first six months of 2022 in the US, booster doses of a covid-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing hospital admissions with omicron related covid-19. READERS' NOTE This article is a living test negative design study that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.
Collapse
|
32
|
Shapiro NI, Filbin MR, Hou PC, Kurz MC, Han JH, Aufderheide TP, Ward MA, Pulia MS, Birkhahn RH, Diaz JL, Hughes TL, Harsch MR, Bell A, Suarez-Cuervo C, Sambursky R. Diagnostic Accuracy of a Bacterial and Viral Biomarker Point-of-Care Test in the Outpatient Setting. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2234588. [PMID: 36255727 PMCID: PMC9579916 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) account for most outpatient visits. Discriminating bacterial vs viral etiology is a diagnostic challenge with therapeutic implications. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether FebriDx, a rapid, point-of-care immunoassay, can differentiate bacterial- from viral-associated host immune response in ARI through measurement of myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA) and C-reactive protein (CRP) from finger-stick blood. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This diagnostic study enrolled adults and children who were symptomatic for ARI and individuals in a control group who were asymptomatic between October 2019 and April 2021. Included participants were a convenience sample of patients in outpatient settings (ie, emergency department, urgent care, and primary care) who were symptomatic, aged 1 year or older, and had suspected ARI and fever within 72 hours. Individuals with immunocompromised state and recent vaccine, antibiotics, stroke, surgery, major burn, or myocardial infarction were excluded. Of 1685 individuals assessed for eligibility, 259 individuals declined participation, 718 individuals were excluded, and 708 individuals were enrolled (520 patients with ARI, 170 patients without ARI, and 18 individuals who dropped out). EXPOSURES Bacterial and viral immunoassay testing was performed using finger-stick blood. Results were read at 10 minutes, and treating clinicians and adjudicators were blinded to results. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Bacterial- or viral-associated systemic host response to an ARI as determined by a predefined comparator algorithm with adjudication classified infection etiology. RESULTS Among 520 participants with ARI (230 male patients [44.2%] and 290 female patients [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 35.3 [17.7] years), 24 participants with missing laboratory information were classified as unknown (4.6%). Among 496 participants with a final diagnosis, 73 individuals (14.7%) were classified as having a bacterial-associated response, 296 individuals (59.7%) as having a viral-associated response, and 127 individuals (25.6%) as negative by the reference standard. The bacterial and viral test correctly classified 68 of 73 bacterial infections, demonstrating a sensitivity of 93.2% (95% CI, 84.9%-97.0%), specificity of 374 of 423 participants (88.4% [95% CI, 85.0%-91.1%]), positive predictive value (PPV) of 68 of 117 participants (58.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-66.7%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 374 of 379 participants (98.7% [95% CI, 96.9%-99.4%]).The test correctly classified 208 of 296 viral infections, for a sensitivity of 70.3% (95% CI, 64.8%-75.2%), a specificity of 176 of 200 participants (88.0% [95% CI, 82.8%-91.8%]), a PPV of 208 of 232 participants (89.7% [95% CI, 85.1%-92.9%]), and an NPV of 176 of 264 participants (66.7% [95% CI, 60.8%-72.1%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, a rapid diagnostic test demonstrated diagnostic performance that may inform clinicians when assessing for bacterial or viral etiology of ARI symptoms.
Collapse
|
33
|
Kwon JH, Tenforde MW, Gaglani M, Talbot HK, Ginde AA, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Douin DJ, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Caspers SD, Exline MC, Botros M, Gong MN, Li A, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Khan A, Hough CL, Busse LW, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Perez C, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rovinski R, Babcock HM, Lauring AS, Felley L, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Womack KN, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Baughman A, Olson SM, Schrag S, Kobayashi M, Verani JR, Patel MM, Self WH. mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. J Infect Dis 2022; 226:797-807. [PMID: 35385875 PMCID: PMC9047160 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiac118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls. RESULTS Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses. CONCLUSIONS Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.
Collapse
|
34
|
Bischof JJ, Elsaid MI, Bridges JFP, Rosko AE, Presley CJ, Abar B, Adler D, Bastani A, Baugh CW, Bernstein SL, Coyne CJ, Durham DD, Grudzen CR, Henning DJ, Hudson MF, Klotz A, Lyman GH, Madsen TE, Reyes-Gibby CC, Rico JF, Ryan RJ, Shapiro NI, Swor R, Thomas CR, Venkat A, Wilson J, Yeung SCJ, Yilmaz S, Caterino JM. Characterization of older adults with cancer seeking acute emergency department care: A prospective observational study. J Geriatr Oncol 2022; 13:943-951. [PMID: 35718667 PMCID: PMC11137847 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 06/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Disparities in care of older adults in cancer treatment trials and emergency department (ED) use exist. This report provides a baseline description of older adults ≥65 years old who present to the ED with active cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Planned secondary analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network observational ED cohort study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Of 1564 eligible adults with active cancer, 1075 patients were prospectively enrolled, of which 505 were ≥ 65 years old. We recruited this convenience sample from eighteen participating sites across the United States between February 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017. RESULTS Compared to cancer patients younger than 65 years of age, older adults were more likely to be transported to the ED by emergency medical services, have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and be admitted despite no significant difference in acuity as measured by the Emergency Severity Index. Despite the higher admission rate, no significant difference was noted in hospitalization length of stay, 30-day mortality, ED revisit or hospital admission within 30 days after the index visit. Three of the top five ED diagnoses for older adults were symptom-related (fever of other and unknown origin, abdominal and pelvic pain, and pain in throat and chest). Despite this, older adults were less likely to report symptoms and less likely to receive symptomatic treatment for pain and nausea than the younger comparison group. Both younger and older adults reported a higher symptom burden on the patient reported Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale than to ED providers. When treating suspected infection, no differences were noted in regard to administration of antibiotics in the ED, admissions, or length of stay ≤2 days for those receiving ED antibiotics. DISCUSSION We identified several differences between older (≥65 years old) and younger adults with active cancer seeking emergency care. Older adults frequently presented for symptom-related diagnoses but received fewer symptomatic interventions in the ED suggesting that important opportunities to improve the care of older adults with cancer in the ED exist.
Collapse
|
35
|
Talan DA, Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Monsell SE, Faine BA, Uribe L, Kaji AH, DeUgarte DA, Self WH, Shapiro NI, Cuschieri J, Glaser J, Park PK, Price TP, Siparsky N, Sanchez SE, Machado-Aranda DA, Victory J, Ayoung-Chee P, Chiang W, Corsa J, Evans HL, Ferrigno L, Garcia L, Hatch Q, Horton MD, Johnson J, Jones A, Kao LS, Kelly A, Kim D, Kutcher ME, Liang MK, Maghami N, McGrane K, Minko E, Mohr C, Neufeld M, Patton JH, Rog C, Rushing A, Sabbatini AK, Salzberg M, Thompson CM, Tichter A, Wisler J, Bizzell B, Fannon E, Lawrence SO, Voldal EC, Lavallee DC, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Davidson GH, Flum DR, Kessler LG. Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2220039. [PMID: 35796152 PMCID: PMC9250049 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. OBJECTIVE To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. EXPOSURES Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. RESULTS Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.
Collapse
|
36
|
Yilmaz S, Grudzen CR, Durham DD, McNaughton C, Marcelin I, Abar B, Adler D, Bastani A, Baugh CW, Bernstein SL, Bischof JJ, Coyne CJ, Henning DJ, Hudson MF, Klotz A, Lyman GH, Madsen TE, Pallin DJ, Reyes-Gibby C, Rico JF, Ryan RJ, Shapiro NI, Swor R, Thomas CR, Venkat A, Wilson J, Yeung SCJ, Caterino JM. Palliative Care Needs and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancer in the Emergency Department. J Palliat Med 2022; 25:1115-1121. [PMID: 35559758 PMCID: PMC9467631 DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2021.0567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Older adults with cancer use the emergency department (ED) for acute concerns. Objectives: Characterize the palliative care needs and clinical outcomes of advanced cancer patients in the ED. Design: A planned secondary data analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN) data. Settings/Subjects: Cancer patients who presented to the 18 CONCERN affiliated EDs in the United States. Measurements: Survey included demographics, cancer type, functional status, symptom burden, palliative and hospice care enrollment, and advance directive code status. Results: Of the total (674/1075, 62.3%) patients had advanced cancer and most were White (78.6%) and female (50.3%); median age was 64 (interquartile range 54-71) years. A small proportion of them were receiving palliative (6.5% [95% confidence interval; CI 3.0-7.6]; p = 0.005) and hospice (1.3% [95% CI 1.0-3.2]; p = 0.52) care and had a higher 30-day mortality rate (8.3%, [95% CI 6.2-10.4]). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer continue to present to the ED despite recommendations for early delivery of palliative care.
Collapse
|
37
|
Adams K, Rhoads JP, Surie D, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Huynh D, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hicks M, Hager DN, Ali H, Prekker ME, Frosch AE, Exline MC, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Lauring AS, Khan A, Hough CL, Busse LW, Ten Lohuis CC, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Gordon AJ, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Chappell JD, Halasa N, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Lester SN, Thornburg NJ, Park S, McMorrow ML, Patel MM, Tenforde MW, Self WH. Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary Series and Booster Doses against Omicron Variant COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization in the United States. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2022. [PMID: 35734090 DOI: 10.1101/2022.06.09.22276228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series plus a booster dose with a primary series alone for the prevention of Omicron variant COVID-19 hospitalization. Design: Multicenter observational case-control study using the test-negative design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness (VE). Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the United States (US). Participants: 3,181 adults hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness between December 26, 2021 and April 30, 2022, a period of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1, BA.2) predominance. Participants included 1,572 (49%) case-patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and 1,609 (51%) control patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Median age was 64 years, 48% were female, and 21% were immunocompromised; 798 (25%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus booster, 1,326 (42%) were vaccinated with a primary series alone, and 1,057 (33%) were unvaccinated. Main Outcome Measures: VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated for a primary series plus a booster and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. VE analyses were stratified by immune status (immunocompetent; immunocompromised) because the recommended vaccine schedules are different for these groups. The primary analysis evaluated all COVID-19 vaccine types combined and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. Results: Among immunocompetent patients, VE against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization for a primary series plus one booster of any vaccine product dose was 77% (95% CI: 71-82%), and for a primary series alone was 44% (95% CI: 31-54%) (p<0.001). VE was higher for a boosted regimen than a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines used in the US (BNT162b2: primary series plus booster VE 80% (95% CI: 73-85%), primary series alone VE 46% (95% CI: 30-58%) [p<0.001]; mRNA-1273: primary series plus booster VE 77% (95% CI: 67-83%), primary series alone VE 47% (95% CI: 30-60%) [p<0.001]). Among immunocompromised patients, VE for a primary series of any vaccine product against Omicron COVID-19 hospitalization was 60% (95% CI: 41-73%). Insufficient sample size has accumulated to calculate effectiveness of boosted regimens for immunocompromised patients. Conclusions: Among immunocompetent people, a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing COVID-19 hospitalization due to the Omicron variant.
Collapse
|
38
|
Lewis NM, Self WH, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, Douin DJ, Keipp Talbot H, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Ghamande SA, McNeal TA, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Khan A, Busse LW, ten Lohuis CC, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Gordon AJ, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Exline MC, Lauring AS, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Rhoads JP, Jones ID, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Adams K, Patel MM, Tenforde MW. Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2022; 75:S159-S166. [PMID: 35675695 PMCID: PMC9214149 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.
Collapse
|
39
|
Lewis NM, Naioti EA, Self WH, Ginde AA, Douin DJ, Keipp Talbot H, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Gaglani M, Ghamande SA, McNeal T, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Clark Files D, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Henning DJ, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Hubel K, Hough CL, Busse LW, ten Lohuis CC, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Gordon AJ, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Exline MC, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Lauring AS, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Rhoads JP, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Schrag SJ, Kobayashi M, Verani JR, Patel MM, Tenforde MW. Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19 Hospitalization by Age and Chronic Medical Conditions Burden Among Immunocompetent US Adults, March-August 2021. J Infect Dis 2022; 225:1694-1700. [PMID: 34932114 PMCID: PMC9113447 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiab619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization was evaluated among immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) during March-August 2021 using a case-control design. Among 1669 hospitalized COVID-19 cases (11% fully vaccinated) and 1950 RT-PCR-negative controls (54% fully vaccinated), VE was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-98%) among patients with no chronic medical conditions and 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%) among patients with ≥ 3 categories of conditions. VE was similar between those aged 18-64 years versus ≥65 years (P > .05). VE against severe COVID-19 was very high among adults without chronic conditions and lessened with increasing comorbidity burden.
Collapse
|
40
|
Tenforde MW, Patel MM, Ginde AA, Douin DJ, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Gaglani M, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Exline MC, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Henning DJ, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Khan A, Hough CT, Busse L, ten Lohuis CC, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Gordon AJ, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Gershengorn HB, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Lauring AS, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Jones ID, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Olson SM, Stephenson M, Schrag SJ, Kobayashi M, Verani JR, Self WH. Effectiveness of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Messenger RNA Vaccines for Preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2022; 74:1515-1524. [PMID: 34358310 PMCID: PMC8436392 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciab687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 52.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8). CONCLUSION During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.
Collapse
|
41
|
Kaizer AM, Wild J, Lindsell CJ, Rice TW, Self WH, Brown S, Thompson BT, Hart KW, Smith C, Pulia MS, Shapiro NI, Ginde AA. Trial of Early Antiviral Therapies during Non-hospitalized Outpatient Window (TREAT NOW) for COVID-19: a summary of the protocol and analysis plan for a decentralized randomized controlled trial. Trials 2022; 23:273. [PMID: 35395957 PMCID: PMC8990452 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06213-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 03/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a heterogeneous outcome in individuals from remaining asymptomatic to death. In a majority of cases, mild symptoms are present that do not require hospitalization and can be successfully treated in the outpatient setting, though symptoms may persist for a long duration. We hypothesize that drugs suitable for decentralized study in outpatients will have efficacy among infected outpatients Methods The TREAT NOW platform is designed to accommodate testing multiple agents with the ability to incorporate new agents in the future. TREAT NOW is an adaptive, blinded, multi-center, placebo-controlled superiority randomized clinical trial which started with two active therapies (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir) and placebo, with the hydroxychloroquine arm dropped shortly after enrollment began due to external evidence. Each arm has a target enrollment of 300 participants who will be randomly assigned in an equal allocation to receive either an active therapy or placebo twice daily for 14 days with daily electronic surveys collected over days 1 through 16 and on day 29 to evaluate symptoms and a modified COVID-19 ordinal outcome scale. Participants are enrolled remotely by telephone and consented with a digital interface, study drug is overnight mailed to study participants, and data collection occurs electronically without in-person interactions. Discussion If effective treatments for COVID-19 can be identified for individuals in the outpatient setting before they advance to severe disease, it will prevent progression to more severe disease, reduce the need for hospitalization, and shorten the duration of symptoms. The novel decentralized, “no touch” approach used by the TREAT NOW platform has distinction advantages over traditional in-person trials to reach broader populations and perform study procedures in a pragmatic yet rigorous manner. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04372628. Registered on April 30, 2020. First posted on May 4, 2020. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06213-z.
Collapse
|
42
|
Han JH, Womack KN, Tenforde MW, Files DC, Gibbs KW, Shapiro NI, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Steingrub JS, Qadir N, Khan A, Hough CL, Johnson NJ, Ely EW, Rice TW, Casey JD, Lindsell CJ, Gong MN, Srinivasan V, Lewis NM, Patel MM, Self WH. Associations between persistent symptoms after mild COVID‐19 and long‐term health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2022; 16:680-689. [PMID: 35347854 PMCID: PMC9111447 DOI: 10.1111/irv.12980] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2022] [Revised: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We sought to assess whether persistent COVID‐19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long‐COVID) among patients with mild COVID‐19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. Methods This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID‐19 from eight sites during 2‐week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6–11 months after their first positive SARS‐CoV‐2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID‐19 symptoms using a 4‐point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID‐19 (pre‐illness) and at follow‐up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID‐19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long‐term follow‐up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ‐5D‐5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire‐4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID‐19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression. Results Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID‐19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID‐19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57–0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59–0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28–1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income. Conclusions In participants with mild acute COVID‐19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long‐term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.
Collapse
|
43
|
Tenforde MW, Self WH, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, Douin DJ, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Frosch AE, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Khan A, Hough CL, Busse LW, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Exline MC, Botros M, Lauring AS, Shapiro NI, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Jones ID, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Rhoads JP, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Adams K, Surie D, McMorrow ML, Patel MM. Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death - United States, March 2021-January 2022. MMWR. MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 2022; 71:459-465. [PMID: 35324878 PMCID: PMC8956334 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7112e1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 48.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
|
44
|
Lauring AS, Tenforde MW, Chappell JD, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Douin DJ, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Exline MC, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Khan A, Hough CL, Busse LW, Ten Lohuis CC, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Gordon AJ, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Halasa N, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Rhoads JP, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Adams K, Schrag SJ, Olson SM, Kobayashi M, Verani JR, Patel MM, Self WH. Clinical severity of, and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against, covid-19 from omicron, delta, and alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States: prospective observational study. BMJ 2022; 376:e069761. [PMID: 35264324 PMCID: PMC8905308 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069761] [Citation(s) in RCA: 303] [Impact Index Per Article: 151.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant. DESIGN Case-control study. SETTING 21 hospitals across the United States. PARTICIPANTS 11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Vaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization's clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression. RESULTS Effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85). CONCLUSIONS mRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.
Collapse
|
45
|
Hudson MF, Strassels SA, Durham DD, Siddique S, Adler D, Yeung SJ, Bernstein SL, Baugh CW, Coyne CJ, Grudzen CR, Henning DJ, Klotz A, Madsen TE, Pallin DJ, Rico JF, Ryan RJ, Shapiro NI, Swor R, Venkat A, Wilson J, Thomas CR, Bischof JJ, Lyman GH, Caterino JM. Examining pain among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients with cancer visiting emergency departments: CONCERN (Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network). Acad Emerg Med 2022; 29:364-368. [PMID: 34606137 DOI: 10.1111/acem.14395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2021] [Revised: 09/28/2021] [Accepted: 09/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
46
|
Yealy DM, Mohr NM, Shapiro NI, Self WH. In reply. Ann Emerg Med 2022; 79:319-320. [DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.11.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
47
|
Tenforde MW, Patel MM, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, Douin DJ, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Johnson NJ, Srinivasan V, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Khan A, Hough CL, Busse LW, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Exline MC, Botros M, Lauring AS, Shapiro NI, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Jones ID, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Rhoads JP, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Naioti EA, Adams K, Lewis NM, Surie D, McMorrow ML, Self WH. Effectiveness of a Third Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines in Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent and Immunocompromised Adults - United States, August-December 2021. MMWR. MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT 2022; 71:118-124. [PMID: 35085218 PMCID: PMC9351530 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7104a2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p <0.001). Among 1,077 adults with immunocompromising conditions (including 324 [30%] unvaccinated, 572 [53%] 2-dose recipients, and 181 [17%] 3-dose recipients), VE was higher among those who received a third dose to complete a primary series (88%; 95% CI = 81%-93%) compared with 2-dose recipients (69%; 95% CI = 57%-78%) (p <0.001). Administration of a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series among immunocompromised adults, or as a booster dose among immunocompetent adults, provides improved protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.
Collapse
|
48
|
Tenforde MW, Self WH, Adams K, Gaglani M, Ginde AA, McNeal T, Ghamande S, Douin DJ, Talbot HK, Casey JD, Mohr NM, Zepeski A, Shapiro NI, Gibbs KW, Files DC, Hager DN, Shehu A, Prekker ME, Erickson HL, Exline MC, Gong MN, Mohamed A, Henning DJ, Steingrub JS, Peltan ID, Brown SM, Martin ET, Monto AS, Khan A, Hough CL, Busse LW, ten Lohuis CC, Duggal A, Wilson JG, Gordon AJ, Qadir N, Chang SY, Mallow C, Rivas C, Babcock HM, Kwon JH, Halasa N, Chappell JD, Lauring AS, Grijalva CG, Rice TW, Jones ID, Stubblefield WB, Baughman A, Womack KN, Rhoads JP, Lindsell CJ, Hart KW, Zhu Y, Olson SM, Kobayashi M, Verani JR, Patel MM. Association Between mRNA Vaccination and COVID-19 Hospitalization and Disease Severity. JAMA 2021; 326:2043-2054. [PMID: 34734975 PMCID: PMC8569602 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.19499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 404] [Impact Index Per Article: 134.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2021] [Accepted: 10/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Importance A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. Objective To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines-mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)-and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. Design, Setting, and Participants A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. Exposures COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P < .001) and weaker at more than 120 days since vaccination with BNT162b2 (5.8% vs 11.5%; aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) than with mRNA-1273 (1.9% vs 8.3%; aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23) (P < .001). Among 1197 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, death or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 28 was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (12.0% vs 24.7%; aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.
Collapse
|
49
|
Klotz AD, Caterino JM, Durham D, Felipe Rico J, Pallin DJ, Grudzen CR, McNaughton C, Marcelin I, Abar B, Adler D, Bastani A, Bernstein SL, Bischof JJ, Coyne CJ, Henning DJ, Hudson MF, Lyman GH, Madsen TE, Reyes‐Gibby CC, Ryan RJ, Shapiro NI, Swor R, Thomas CR, Venkat A, Wilson J, Jim Yeung S, Yilmaz S, Stutman R, Baugh CW. Observation unit use among patients with cancer following emergency department visits: Results of a multicenter prospective cohort from CONCERN. Acad Emerg Med 2021; 29:174-183. [PMID: 34811858 PMCID: PMC10359998 DOI: 10.1111/acem.14392] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Revised: 09/08/2021] [Accepted: 09/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Emergency department (ED) visits by patients with cancer frequently end in hospitalization. As concerns about ED and hospital crowding increase, observation unit care may be an important strategy to deliver safe and efficient treatment for eligible patients. In this investigation, we compared the prevalence and clinical characteristics of cancer patients who received observation unit care with those who were admitted to the hospital from the ED. METHODS We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cancer presenting to an ED affiliated with one of 18 hospitals of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network (CONCERN) between March 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017. We compared patient characteristics with the prevalence of observation unit care usage, hospital admission, and length of stay. RESULTS Of 1051 enrolled patients, 596 (56.7%) were admitted as inpatients, and 72 (6.9%) were placed in an observation unit. For patients admitted as inpatients, 23.7% had a length of stay ≤2 days. The conversion rate from observation to inpatient was 17.1% (95% CI 14.6-19.4) among those receiving care in an observation unit. The average observation unit length of stay was 14.7 h. Patient factors associated ED disposition to observation unit care were female gender and low Charlson Comorbidity Index. CONCLUSION In this multicenter prospective cohort study, the discrepancy between observation unit care use and short inpatient hospitalization may represent underutilization of this resource and a target for process change.
Collapse
|
50
|
Schmaier AA, Pajares Hurtado GM, Manickas-Hill ZJ, Sack KD, Chen SM, Bhambhani V, Quadir J, Nath AK, Collier ARY, Ngo D, Barouch DH, Shapiro NI, Gerszten RE, Yu XG, Peters KG, Flaumenhaft R, Parikh SM. Tie2 activation protects against prothrombotic endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19. JCI Insight 2021; 6:e151527. [PMID: 34506304 PMCID: PMC8564889 DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.151527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2021] [Accepted: 09/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Endothelial dysfunction accompanies the microvascular thrombosis commonly observed in severe COVID-19. Constitutively, the endothelial surface is anticoagulant, a property maintained at least in part via signaling through the Tie2 receptor. During inflammation, the Tie2 antagonist angiopoietin-2 (Angpt-2) is released from endothelial cells and inhibits Tie2, promoting a prothrombotic phenotypic shift. We sought to assess whether severe COVID-19 is associated with procoagulant endothelial dysfunction and alterations in the Tie2/angiopoietin axis. Primary HUVECs treated with plasma from patients with severe COVID-19 upregulated the expression of thromboinflammatory genes, inhibited the expression of antithrombotic genes, and promoted coagulation on the endothelial surface. Pharmacologic activation of Tie2 with the small molecule AKB-9778 reversed the prothrombotic state induced by COVID-19 plasma in primary endothelial cells. Lung autopsies from patients with COVID-19 demonstrated a prothrombotic endothelial signature. Assessment of circulating endothelial markers in a cohort of 98 patients with mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 revealed endothelial dysfunction indicative of a prothrombotic state. Angpt-2 concentrations rose with increasing disease severity, and the highest levels were associated with worse survival. These data highlight the disruption of Tie2/angiopoietin signaling and procoagulant changes in endothelial cells in severe COVID-19. Our findings provide rationale for current trials of Tie2-activating therapy with AKB-9778 in COVID-19.
Collapse
|