Early Serial Echocardiographic and Ultrasonographic Findings in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

Background

Cardiac function of critically ill patients with COVID-19 generally has been reported from clinically obtained data. Echocardiographic deformation imaging can identify ventricular dysfunction missed by traditional echocardiographic assessment.

Research Question

What is the prevalence of ventricular dysfunction and what are its implications for the natural history of critical COVID-19?

Study Design and Methods

This is a multicenter prospective cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. We performed serial echocardiography and lower extremity vascular ultrasound on hospitalization days 1, 3, and 8. We defined left ventricular (LV) dysfunction as the absolute value of longitudinal strain of < 17% or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of < 50%. Primary clinical outcome was inpatient survival.

Results

We enrolled 110 patients. Thirty-nine (35.5%) died before hospital discharge. LV dysfunction was present at admission in 38 patients (34.5%) and in 21 patients (36.2%) on day 8 (P = .59). Median baseline LVEF was 62% (interquartile range [IQR], 52%-69%), whereas median absolute value of baseline LV strain was 16% (IQR, 14%-19%). Survivors and nonsurvivors did not differ statistically significantly with respect to day 1 LV strain (17.9% vs 14.4%; P = .12) or day 1 LVEF (60.5% vs 65%; P = .06). Nonsurvivors showed worse day 1 right ventricle (RV) strain than survivors (16.3% vs 21.2%; P = .04).

Interpretation

Among patients with critical COVID-19, LV and RV dysfunction is common, frequently identified only through deformation imaging, and early (day 1) RV dysfunction may be associated with clinical outcome.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death Among Immunocompetent Adults During the Omicron Variant Period - IVY Network, 19 U.S. States, February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.

Consistent Effects of Early Remdesivir on Symptoms and Disease Progression Across At-Risk Outpatient Subgroups: Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in PINETREE Study

INTRODUCTION

In the PINETREE study, early remdesivir treatment reduced risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations or all-cause death versus placebo by 87% by day 28 in high-risk, non-hospitalized patients. Here we report results of assessment of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) of early outpatient remdesivir, focusing on time from symptom onset and number of baseline risk factors (RFs).

METHODS

PINETREE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were randomized within 7 days of symptom onset and had ≥ 1 RF for disease progression (age ≥ 60 years, obesity [body mass index ≥ 30], or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients received remdesivir intravenously (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo.

RESULTS

In this subgroup analysis, HTE of remdesivir by time from symptom onset at treatment initiation and number of baseline RFs was not detected. Treatment with remdesivir reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations independent of stratification by time from symptom onset to randomization. Of patients enrolled ≤ 5 days from symptom onset, 1/201 (0.5%) receiving remdesivir and 9/194 (4.6%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (hazard ratio [HR] 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.82). Of those enrolled at > 5 days from symptom onset, 1/78 (1.3%) receiving remdesivir and 6/89 (6.7%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.02-1.61). Remdesivir was also effective in reducing COVID-19-related hospitalizations when stratified by number of baseline RFs for severe disease. Of patients with ≤ 2 RFs, 0/159 (0.0%) receiving remdesivir and 4/164 (2.4%) receiving placebo were hospitalized; of those with ≥ 3 RFs, 2/120 (1.7%) receiving remdesivir and 11/119 (9.2%) receiving placebo were hospitalized (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.04-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

In the outpatient setting, benefit of remdesivir initiated within 7 days of symptoms appeared to be consistent across patients with RFs. Therefore, it may be reasonable to broadly treat patients with remdesivir regardless of comorbidities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04501952.

Renin-Angiotensin System Modulation With Synthetic Angiotensin (1-7) and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor-Biased Ligand in Adults With COVID-19: Two Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022.

Interventions

A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension.

Results

Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo.

Conclusions and Relevance

In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

Fulfillment of Patient Expectations after Acute Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

Rationale: Discussion of patient expectations for recovery is a component of intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up clinics. However, few studies have formally evaluated recovery-related expectations of ICU survivors. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of unmet expectations for recovery 6 months after hospital discharge among adult survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: This was a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study of survivors of ARF discharged to home from five U.S. medical centers. Expectations for functional recovery were assessed by asking which activities and instrumental activities of daily living (I/ADLs) survivors expected to perform independently at 6 months. Survivors' expectations for overall health status were assessed using a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100. At 6-month follow-up, participants reported which I/ADLs they could perform independently and rated their overall health status using a 100-point visual analogue scale. We defined a participant's functional expectations as being met if they reported independently performing I/ADLs as expected at hospital discharge. Health expectations were considered to be met when self-rated health status at 6 months was no more than 8 points lower than expected at enrollment. Results: Among 180 enrollees, 169 (94%) were alive, and 160 of these (95%) participated in 6-month follow-up. Functional expectations were met for 71% of participating survivors, and overall health expectations were met for 50%. Expectations for functional independence were high, ranging from 87% (housekeeping) to 99% (using a telephone). General health expectations were variable (median, 85; interquartile range [IQR], 75-95). At 6-month follow-up, self-rated, overall health ranged from 2 to 100 (median, 80; IQR, 60-85). In exploratory analyses, participants with met versus unmet expectations differed most in formal education (functional expectations standardized difference = 0.88; health expectations standardized difference = 0.41). Conclusions: Expectations of survivors of ARF about independent functioning were high and generally met, but half had unmet general health expectations 6 months after discharge. It is difficult to predict whose health expectations will be unmet, but possessing less formal education may be a risk factor. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03797313).

Lopinavir/ritonavir for treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Effective and widely available therapies are still needed for outpatients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for early treatment of non-hospitalized individuals diagnosed with COVID-19.

METHODS

This randomized, placebo (Plb)-controlled, double-blind, multi-site decentralized clinical trial enrolled non-hospitalized adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and six or fewer days of acute respiratory infection symptoms who were randomized to either twice-daily oral LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg) or Plb for 14 days. Daily surveys on study days 1 through 16 and again on study day 28 evaluated symptoms, daily activities, and hospitalization status. The primary outcome was longitudinal change in an ordinal scale based on a combination of symptoms, activity, and hospitalization status through day 15 and was analyzed by use of a Bayesian longitudinal proportional odds logistic regression model for estimating the probability of a superior recovery for LPV/r over Plb (odds ratio >1).

RESULTS

Between June 2020 and December 2021, 448 participants were randomized to receive either LPV/r (n = 216) or Plb (n = 221). The mean symptom duration before randomization was 4.3 days (SD 1.3). There were no differences between treatment groups through the first 15 days for the ordinal primary outcome (odds ratio 0.96; 95% credible interval: 0.66 to 1.41). There were 3.2% (n = 7) of LPV/r and 2.7% (n = 6) of Plb participants hospitalized by day 28. Serious adverse events did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

LPV/r did not significantly improve symptom resolution or reduce hospitalization in non-hospitalized participants with COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04372628.

Delivery of Lung-protective Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Hybrid Implementation-Effectiveness Trial

Rationale: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but adherence remains inadequate. Objectives: To measure the process and clinical impacts of implementation of a science-based intervention to improve LPV adherence for patients with ARDS, in part by increased use of clinical decision support (CDS). Methods: We conducted a type III hybrid implementation/effectiveness pilot trial enrolling adult patients with ARDS admitted to three hospitals before and after the launch of a multimodal implementation intervention to increase the use of mechanical ventilation CDS and improve LPV adherence. The primary outcome was patients' percentage of time adherent to low tidal volume (⩽6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) ventilation (LTVV). Secondary outcomes included adherence to prescribed oxygenation settings, the use of the CDS tool's independent oxygenation and ventilation components, ventilator-free days, and mortality. Analyses employed multivariable regression to compare adjusted pre- versus postintervention outcomes after the exclusion of a postintervention wash-in period. A sensitivity analysis measured process outcomes' level and trend change postintervention using segmented regression. Results: The 446 included patients had a mean age of 60 years, and 43% were female. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar pre- versus postintervention. The adjusted proportion of adherent time increased postintervention for LTVV (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-14.5%) and prescribed oxygenation settings (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.2-16.5%), as did the probability patients spent ⩾90% of ventilated time on LTVV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.58; 95% CI, 1.64-4.10) and use of ventilation CDS (aOR, 41.3%; 95% CI, 35.9-46.7%) and oxygenation CDS (aOR, 54.3%; 95% CI, 50.9-57.7%). Ventilator-free days (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62) and 28-day mortality (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20) did not change significantly after intervention. Segmented regression analysis supported a causal relationship between the intervention and improved CDS usage but suggested trends before intervention rather than the studied intervention could explain increased LPV adherence after the intervention. Conclusions: In this pilot trial, a multimodal implementation intervention was associated with increased use of ventilator management CDS for patients with ARDS but was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes and may not have independently caused the observed postintervention improvements in LPV adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03984175).

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension

BACKGROUND

Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.

METHODS

In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

Protection of Messenger RNA Vaccines Against Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Adults Over the First Year Following Authorization in the United States

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

METHODS

Case-control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states 11 March-15 December 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose 2) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines.

RESULTS

A total of 10 078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-91) versus 82% (95% CI, 79-85) at ≥180 days (P < .001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, P < .001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, P < .001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) (91% to 87%, P = .005), and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, P < .001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In a period largely predating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of 2 mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.

Association Between Unmet Nonmedication Needs After Hospital Discharge and Readmission or Death Among Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To characterize early unmet nonmedication discharge needs (UDNs), classified as durable medical equipment (DME), home health services (HHS), and follow-up medical appointments (FUAs) and explore their association with 90-day readmission and mortality among survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF) who were discharged home.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter cohort study.

SETTING

Six academic medical centers across United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult survivors of ARF who required an ICU stay and were discharged home from hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

None. Exposure of interest was the proportion of UDN for the following categories: DME, HHS, and FUA ascertained within 7-28 days after hospital discharge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred eligible patients were recruited between January 2019 and August 2020. One-hundred ninety-five patients were included in the analytic cohort: 118 were prescribed DME, 134 were prescribed HHS, and 189 needed at least one FUA according to discharge plans. 98.4% (192/195) had at least one identified nonmedication need at hospital discharge. Median (interquartile range) proportion of unmet needs across three categories were 0 (0-15%) for DME, 0 (0-50%) for HHS, and 0 (0-25%) for FUA, and overall was 0 (0-20%). Fifty-six patients (29%) had 90-day death or readmission. After adjusting for prespecified covariates, having greater than the median level of unmet needs was not associated with an increased risk of readmission or death within 90 days of discharge (risk ratio, 0.89; 0.51-1.57; p = 0.690). Age, hospital length of stay, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II severity of illness score, and Multidimensional Scale Perceived Social Support score were associated with UDN.

CONCLUSIONS

UDN were common among survivors of ARF but not significantly associated a composite outcome of 90-day readmission or death. Our results highlight the substantial magnitude of UDN and identifies areas especially vulnerable to lapses in healthcare coordination.

Assessment of Symptom, Disability, and Financial Trajectories in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 at 6 Months

Importance

Individuals who survived COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms, disabilities, and financial consequences. However, national longitudinal estimates of symptom burden remain limited.

Objective

To measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19-related hospitalization.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A national US multicenter prospective cohort study with 1-, 3-, and 6-month postdischarge visits was conducted at 44 sites participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. Participants included hospitalized English- or Spanish-speaking adults without severe prehospitalization disabilities or cognitive impairment. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022.

Exposure

Hospitalization for COVID-19 as identified with a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test.

Main Outcomes and Measures

New or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with new cardiopulmonary symptoms or financial problems at 6 months.

Results

A total of 825 adults (444 [54.0%] were male, and 379 [46.0%] were female) met eligibility criteria and completed at least 1 follow-up survey. Median age was 56 (IQR, 43-66) years; 253 (30.7%) participants were Hispanic, 145 (17.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 360 (43.6%) were non-Hispanic White. Symptoms, disabilities, and financial problems remained highly prevalent among hospitalization survivors at month 6. Rates increased between months 1 and 6 for cardiopulmonary symptoms (from 67.3% to 75.4%; P = .001) and fatigue (from 40.7% to 50.8%; P < .001). Decreases were noted over the same interval for prevalent financial problems (from 66.1% to 56.4%; P < .001) and functional limitations (from 55.3% to 47.3%; P = .004). Participants not reporting problems at month 1 often reported new symptoms (60.0%), financial problems (23.7%), disabilities (23.8%), or fatigue (41.4%) at month 6.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE.

Results

A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary.

Conclusions

Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥65 Years - IVY Network, 18 States, September 8-November 30, 2022

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

IFITM3 regulates fibrinogen endocytosis and platelet reactivity in nonviral sepsis

Platelets and megakaryocytes are critical players in immune responses. Recent reports suggest infection and inflammation alter the megakaryocyte and platelet transcriptome to induce altered platelet reactivity. We determined whether nonviral sepsis induces differential platelet gene expression and reactivity. Nonviral sepsis upregulated IFN-induced transmembrane protein 3 (IFITM3), an IFN-responsive gene that restricts viral replication. As IFITM3 has been linked to clathrin-mediated endocytosis, we determined whether IFITM3 promoted endocytosis of α-granule proteins. IFN stimulation enhanced fibrinogen endocytosis in megakaryocytes and platelets from Ifitm+/+ mice, but not Ifitm-/- mice. IFITM3 overexpression or deletion in megakaryocytes demonstrated IFITM3 was necessary and sufficient to regulate fibrinogen endocytosis. Mechanistically, IFITM3 interacted with clathrin and αIIb and altered their plasma membrane localization into lipid rafts. In vivo IFN administration increased fibrinogen endocytosis, platelet reactivity, and thrombosis in an IFITM-dependent manner. In contrast, Ifitm-/- mice were completely rescued from IFN-induced platelet hyperreactivity and thrombosis. During murine sepsis, platelets from Ifitm+/+ mice demonstrated increased fibrinogen content and platelet reactivity, which was dependent on IFN-α and IFITMs. Platelets from patients with nonviral sepsis had increases in platelet IFITM3 expression, fibrinogen content, and hyperreactivity. These data identify IFITM3 as a regulator of platelet endocytosis, hyperreactivity, and thrombosis during inflammatory stress.

Care of the Seriously Ill Patient with SARS-CoV-2

In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 caused the greatest global health crisis in a century, impacting all aspects of society. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolved throughout 2020 and 2021, multiple variants emerged, contributing to multiple surges in cases of COVID-19 worldwide. In 2021, highly effective vaccines became available, although the pandemic continues into 2022. There has been tremendous expansion of basic, translational, and clinical knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 since the pandemic's onset. Treatment options have been rapidly explored, attempting to repurpose preexisting medications in tandem with development and evaluation of novel agents. Care of the seriously ill patient is examined.

Vaccine effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against covid-19 associated hospital admissions in the United States: living test negative design study

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.

Tixagevimab-cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab-cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care.

METHODS

In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg-cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab-cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab-cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97-1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97-1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50-0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68-1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab-cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed.

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge.

SETTING

114 centers in 10 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity.

LIMITATIONS

Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available.

CONCLUSION

Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

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.