A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.

METHODS

In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5.

RESULTS

On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

Effect of Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Hydrocortisone on Ventilator- and Vasopressor-Free Days in Patients With Sepsis: The VICTAS Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Sepsis is a common syndrome with substantial morbidity and mortality. A combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and corticosteroids has been proposed as a potential treatment for patients with sepsis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone every 6 hours increases ventilator- and vasopressor-free days compared with placebo in patients with sepsis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, adaptive-sample-size, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adult patients with sepsis-induced respiratory and/or cardiovascular dysfunction. Participants were enrolled in the emergency departments or intensive care units at 43 hospitals in the United States between August 2018 and July 2019. After enrollment of 501 participants, funding was withheld, leading to an administrative termination of the trial. All study-related follow-up was completed by January 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) every 6 hours (n = 252) or matching placebo (n = 249) for 96 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death. Participants could be treated with open-label corticosteroids by the clinical team, with study hydrocortisone or matching placebo withheld if the total daily dose was greater or equal to the equivalent of 200 mg of hydrocortisone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of consecutive ventilator- and vasopressor-free days in the first 30 days following the day of randomization. The key secondary outcome was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Among 501 participants randomized (median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 50-70] years; 46% female; 30% Black; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, 27 [IQR, 20.8-33.0]; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 9 [IQR, 7-12]), all completed the trial. Open-label corticosteroids were prescribed to 33% and 32% of the intervention and control groups, respectively. Ventilator- and vasopressor-free days were a median of 25 days (IQR, 0-29 days) in the intervention group and 26 days (IQR, 0-28 days) in the placebo group, with a median difference of -1 day (95% CI, -4 to 2 days; P = .85). Thirty-day mortality was 22% in the intervention group and 24% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among critically ill patients with sepsis, treatment with vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly increase ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days. However, the trial was terminated early for administrative reasons and may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509350.

Symptoms and recovery among adult outpatients with and without COVID-19 at 11 healthcare facilities-July 2020, United States

Background

Symptoms of mild COVID‐19 illness are non‐specific and may persist for prolonged periods. Effects on quality of life of persistent poor physical or mental health associated with COVID‐19 are not well understood.

Methods

Adults aged ≥18 years with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 and matched control patients who tested negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at outpatient facilities associated with 11 medical centers in the United States were interviewed to assess symptoms, illness duration, and health‐related quality of life. Duration of symptoms, health‐related quality of life measures, and days of poor physical health by symptoms experienced during illness were compared between case patients and controls using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Symptoms associated with COVID‐19 case status were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Among 320 participants included, 157 were COVID‐19 cases and 163 were SARS‐CoV‐2 negative controls. Loss of taste or smell was reported by 63% of cases and 6% of controls and was strongly associated with COVID‐19 in logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 32.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6‐83.1). COVID‐19 cases were more likely than controls to have experienced fever, body aches, weakness, or fatigue during illness, and to report ≥1 persistent symptom more than 14 days after symptom onset (50% vs 32%, P < .001). Cases reported significantly more days of poor physical health during the past 14 days than controls (P < .01).

Conclusions

Differentiating COVID‐19 from other acute illnesses will require widespread diagnostic testing, especially during influenza seasons. Persistent COVID‐19‐related symptoms may negatively affect quality of life, even among those initially presenting with mild illness.

Clinical criteria for COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

A subset of patients with COVID-19 develops a hyperinflammatory syndrome that has similarities with other hyperinflammatory disorders. However, clinical criteria specifically to define COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome (cHIS) have not been established. We aimed to develop and validate diagnostic criteria for cHIS in a cohort of inpatients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched for clinical research articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Aug 20, 2020, on features and diagnostic criteria for secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, macrophage activation syndrome, macrophage activation-like syndrome of sepsis, cytokine release syndrome, and COVID-19. We compared published clinical data for COVID-19 with clinical features of other hyperinflammatory or cytokine storm syndromes. Based on a framework of conserved clinical characteristics, we developed a six-criterion additive scale for cHIS: fever, macrophage activation (hyperferritinaemia), haematological dysfunction (neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio), hepatic injury (lactate dehydrogenase or asparate aminotransferase), coagulopathy (D-dimer), and cytokinaemia (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, or triglycerides). We then validated the association of the cHIS scale with in-hospital mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in consecutive patients in the Intermountain Prospective Observational COVID-19 (IPOC) registry who were admitted to hospital with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. We used a multistate model to estimate the temporal implications of cHIS.

FINDINGS

We included 299 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between March 13 and May 5, 2020, in analyses. Unadjusted discrimination of the maximum daily cHIS score was 0·81 (95% CI 0·74-0·88) for in-hospital mortality and 0·92 (0·88-0·96) for mechanical ventilation; these results remained significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1·6 [95% CI 1·2-2·1], p=0·0020, for mortality and 4·3 [3·0-6·0], p<0·0001, for mechanical ventilation). 161 (54%) of 299 patients met two or more cHIS criteria during their hospital admission; these patients had higher risk of mortality than patients with a score of less than 2 (24 [15%] of 138 vs one [1%] of 161) and for mechanical ventilation (73 [45%] vs three [2%]). In the multistate model, using daily cHIS score as a time-dependent variable, the cHIS hazard ratio for worsening from low to moderate oxygen requirement was 1·4 (95% CI 1·2-1·6), from moderate oxygen to high-flow oxygen 2·2 (1·1-4·4), and to mechanical ventilation 4·0 (1·9-8·2).

INTERPRETATION

We proposed and validated criteria for hyperinflammation in COVID-19. This hyperinflammatory state, cHIS, is commonly associated with progression to mechanical ventilation and death. External validation is needed. The cHIS scale might be helpful in defining target populations for trials and immunomodulatory therapies.

FUNDING

Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

Decline in SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies After Mild Infection Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network - 12 States, April-August 2020

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection.

Hydroxychloroquine vs. Azithromycin for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (HAHPS): Results of a Randomized, Active Comparator Trial

RATIONALE

The COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective.

RESULTS

We enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury.

CONCLUSIONS

While early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.

Evaluating the association between unmet healthcare needs and subsequent clinical outcomes: protocol for the Addressing Post-Intensive Care Syndrome-01 (APICS-01) multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

As short-term mortality declines for critically ill patients, a growing number of survivors face long-term physical, cognitive and/or mental health impairments. After hospital discharge, many critical illness survivors require an in-depth plan to address their healthcare needs. Early after hospital discharge, numerous survivors experience inadequate care or a mismatch between their healthcare needs and what is provided. Many patients are readmitted to the hospital, have substantial healthcare resource use and experience long-lasting morbidity. The objective of this study is to investigate the gap in healthcare needs occurring immediately after hospital discharge and its association with hospital readmissions or death for survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this multicentre prospective cohort study, we will enrol 200 survivors of ARF in the intensive care unit (ICU) who are discharged directly home from their acute care hospital stay. Unmet healthcare needs, the primary exposure of interest, will be evaluated as soon as possible within 1 to 4 weeks after hospital discharge, via a standardised telephone assessment. The primary outcome, death or hospital readmission, will be measured at 3 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes (eg, quality of life, cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder) will be measured as part of 3-month and 6-month telephone-based follow-up assessments. Descriptive statistics will be reported for the exposure and outcome variables along with a propensity score analysis, using inverse probability weighting for the primary exposure, to evaluate the relationship between the primary exposure and outcome.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received ethics approval from Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the University of Utah IRB (for the Veterans Affairs site). These results will inform both clinical practice and future interventional trials in the field. We plan to disseminate the results in peer-reviewed journals, and via national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03738774). Registered before enrollment of the first patient.

Case of relapsing sulfasalazine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome upon re-exposure

Sulfasalazine-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (SIHS) is a serious systemic delayed adverse drug reaction that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Here, we report the first case, to our knowledge, of a patient with previously unidentified SIHS who developed a significantly more rapid and extreme recurrence on re-exposure to sulfasalazine. The patient is a 58-year-old woman with asymptomatic Crohn's disease who, 10 days after initiating sulfasalazine, developed fevers, diffuse rash, pancytopenia, hypotension and hepatitis without a definitive source of infection. Sixteen days after her first hospitalisation, she was restarted on sulfasalazine and was readmitted within 10 hours with a similar but more serious presentation, requiring vasopressors. She did recover completely without any further recurrence to date, after definitively discontinuing sulfasalazine. This case demonstrates the importance of recognising SIHS early in patients to prevent re-exposure to sulfasalazine and to ensure timely initiation of appropriate treatment.

Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities - United States, July 2020

Community and close contact exposures continue to drive the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. CDC and other public health authorities recommend community mitigation strategies to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1,2). Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities. Potential exposures, such as close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, have primarily been assessed among COVID-19 cases, without a non-COVID-19 comparison group (3,4). To assess community and close contact exposures associated with COVID-19, exposures reported by case-patients (154) were compared with exposures reported by control-participants (160). Case-patients were symptomatic adults (persons aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Control-participants were symptomatic outpatient adults from the same health care facilities who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Close contact with a person with known COVID-19 was more commonly reported among case-patients (42%) than among control-participants (14%). Case-patients were more likely to have reported dining at a restaurant (any area designated by the restaurant, including indoor, patio, and outdoor seating) in the 2 weeks preceding illness onset than were control-participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5-3.8). Restricting the analysis to participants without known close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19, case-patients were more likely to report dining at a restaurant (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.9-4.3) or going to a bar/coffee shop (aOR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.5-10.1) than were control-participants. Exposures and activities where mask use and social distancing are difficult to maintain, including going to places that offer on-site eating or drinking, might be important risk factors for acquiring COVID-19. As communities reopen, efforts to reduce possible exposures at locations that offer on-site eating and drinking options should be considered to protect customers, employees, and communities.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network - 13 Academic Medical Centers, April-June 2020

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

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

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

Depression and Change in Caregiver Burden Among Family Members of Intensive Care Unit Survivors

BACKGROUND

Family members of patients in intensive care units may experience psychological distress and substantial caregiver burden.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether change in caregiver burden from intensive care unit admission to 3-month follow-up is associated with caregiver depression at 3 months.

METHODS

Caregiver burden was assessed at enrollment and 3 months later, and caregiver depression was assessed at 3 months. Depression was measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score. The primary analysis was the association between depression at 3 months and change in caregiver burden, controlling for a history of caregiver depression.

RESULTS

One hundred one participants were enrolled; 65 participants had a surviving loved one and completed 3-month follow-up. At 3-month follow-up, 12% of participants met criteria for depression. Increased caregiver burden over time was significantly associated with depression at follow-up (Fisher exact test, P = .004), although this association was not significant after controlling for self-reported history of depression at baseline (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, P = .23).

CONCLUSIONS

Family members are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population susceptible to negative psychological outcomes after a loved one's admission to the intensive care unit. In this small sample, no significant association was found between change in caregiver burden and depression at 3 months after controlling for baseline depression.

Physiology-Informed Real-Time Mean Arterial Blood Pressure Learning and Prediction for Septic Patients Receiving Norepinephrine

OBJECTIVE

Septic shock is a life-threatening manifestation of infection with a mortality of 20-50% [1]. A catecholamine vasopressor, norepinephrine (NE), is widely used to treat septic shock primarily by increasing blood pressure. For this reason, future blood pressure knowledge is invaluable for properly controlling NE infusion rates in septic patients. However, recent machine learning and data-driven methods often treat the physiological effects of NE as a black box. In this paper, a real-time, physiology-informed human mean arterial blood pressure model for septic shock patients undergoing NE infusion is studied.

METHODS

Our methods combine learning theory, adaptive filter theory, and physiology. We learn least mean square adaptive filters to predict three physiological parameters (heart rate, pulse pressure, and the product of total arterial compliance and arterial resistance) from previous data and previous NE infusion rate. These predictions are combined according to a physiology model to predict future mean arterial blood pressure.

RESULTS

Our model successfully forecasts mean arterial blood pressure on 30 septic patients from two databases. Specifically, we predict mean arterial blood pressure 3.33 minutes to 20 minutes into the future with a root mean square error from 3.56 mmHg to 6.22 mmHg. Additionally, we compare the computational cost of different models and discover a correlation between learned NE response models and a patient's SOFA score.

CONCLUSION

Our approach advances our capability to predict the effects of changing NE infusion rates in septic patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

More accurately predicted MAP can lessen clinicians' workload and reduce error in NE titration.

Hydroxychloroquine versus Azithromycin for Hospitalized Patients with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 (HAHPS). Protocol for a Pragmatic, Open-Label, Active Comparator Trial

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a potentially fatal illness with no proven therapy beyond excellent supportive care. Treatments are urgently sought. Adaptations to traditional trial logistics and design to allow rapid implementation, evaluation of trials within a global trials context, flexible interim monitoring, and access outside traditional research hospitals (even in settings where formal placebos are unavailable) may be helpful. Thoughtful adaptations to traditional trial designs, especially within the global context of related studies, may also foster collaborative relationships among government, community, and the research enterprise. Here, we describe the protocol for a pragmatic, active comparator trial in as many as 300 patients comparing two current "off-label" treatments for COVID-19-hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin-in academic and nonacademic hospitals in Utah. We developed the trial in response to local pressures for widespread, indiscriminate off-label use of these medications. We used a hybrid Bayesian-frequentist design for interim monitoring to allow rapid, contextual assessment of the available evidence. We also developed an inference grid for interpreting the range of possible results from this trial within the context of parallel trials and prepared for a network meta-analysis of the resulting data. This trial was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04329832).

Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Institution of an emergency department "swarming" care model and sepsis door-to-antibiotic time: A quasi-experimental retrospective analysis

Background

Prompt sepsis treatment is associated with improved outcomes but requires a complex series of actions by multiple clinicians. We investigated whether simply reorganizing emergency department (ED) care to expedite patients’ initial evaluation was associated with shorter sepsis door-to-antibiotic times.

Methods

Patients eligible for this retrospective study received IV antibiotics and demonstrated acute organ failure after presenting to one of three EDs in Utah. On May 1, 2016, the intervention ED instituted “swarming” as the default model for initial evaluation of all mid- and low-acuity patients. Swarming involved simultaneous patient evaluation by the ED physician, nurse, and technician followed by a team discussion of the initial care plan. Care was unchanged at the two control EDs. A 30-day wash-in period separated the baseline (May 16, 2015 to April 15, 2016) and post-intervention (May 16, 2016 to November 15, 2016) analysis periods. We conducted a quasi-experimental analysis comparing door-to-antibiotic time for sepsis patients at the intervention ED after versus before care reorganization, applying difference-in-differences methods to control for trends in door-to-antibiotic time unrelated to the studied intervention and multivariable regression to adjust for patient characteristics.

Results

The analysis included 3,230 ED sepsis patients, including 1,406 from the intervention ED. Adjusted analyses using difference-in-differences methods to control for temporal trends unrelated to the studied intervention revealed no significant change in door-to-antibiotic time after care reorganization (-7 minutes, 95% CI -20 to 6 minutes, p = 0.29). Multivariable pre/post analyses using data only from the intervention ED overestimated the magnitude and statistical significance of outcome changes associated with ED care reorganization.

Conclusions

Implementation of an ED care model involving parallel multidisciplinary assessment and early team discussion of the care plan was not associated with improvements in mid- and low-acuity sepsis patients’ door-to-antibiotic time after accounting for changes in the outcome unrelated to the studied intervention.

Persistence of patient and family experiences of critical illness

OBJECTIVE

To investigate: (1) patient and family experiences with healthcare and the intensive care unit (ICU); (2) experiences during their critical illness; (3) communication and decision making during critical illness; (4) feelings about the ICU experience; (5) impact of the critical illness on their lives; and (6) concerns about their future after the ICU.

DESIGN

Four semistructured focus group interviews with former ICU patients and family members.

SETTINGS

Multicultural community group and local hospitals containing medical/surgical ICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients and family who experienced a critical illness within the previous 10 years.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four separate focus groups each lasting a maximum of 150 min and consisting of a total of 21 participants were held. Focus groups were conducted using a semistructured script including six topics relating to the experience of critical illness that facilitated deduction and the sorting of data by thematic analysis into five predominant themes. The five main themes that emerged from the data were: (1) personalised stories of the critical illness; (2) communication and shared decision making, (3) adjustment to life after critical illness, (4) trust towards clinical team and relevance of cultural beliefs and (5) end-of-life decision making. Across themes, we observed a misalignment between the medical system and patient and family values and priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The experience of critical illness of a diverse group of patients and families can remain vivid for years after ICU discharge. The identified themes reflect the strength of memory of such pivotal experiences and the importance of a narrative around those experiences. Clinicians need to be aware of the lasting effects of critical illness has on patients and families.

Unanticipated critical findings on echocardiography in septic patients

BACKGROUND

Echocardiography is increasingly performed among septic patients as a routine part of evaluation and management in the intensive care unit (ICU). The rate of unanticipated critical findings (e.g., severe left or right ventricular dysfunction or pericardial tamponade) on such echocardiograms is unknown. We evaluated a retrospective cohort of septic ICU patients in whom transthoracic echocardiography was performed as a routine part of sepsis management. In addition to identifying critical findings, we defined whether each critical finding was anticipated, and whether the clinical team responded to the critical finding. The primary outcome was rate of unanticipated critical findings, which we hypothesized would occur in fewer than 5% of patients. We also performed an exploratory analysis of the association between unanticipated critical finding and mortality, controlling for severity of illness.

RESULTS

We studied 393 patients. Unanticipated critical findings were identified in 5% (95% CI 3-7%) of patients (n = 20). Among the 20 patients with unanticipated critical findings, a response to the unanticipated critical finding was identified in 12 (60%) patients. An unanticipated critical finding was not significantly associated with 28-day mortality when controlling for admission APACHE II (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Unanticipated critical findings on echocardiograms in septic ICU patients are uncommon. The potential therapeutic relevance of echocardiography to sepsis is more likely related to hemodynamic management than to traditional cardiac diagnoses. Research studies that employ blinded echocardiograms in septic patients may anticipate unblinding for critical findings approximately 1 in every 20 echocardiograms.

Alive and Ventilator Free: A Hierarchical, Composite Outcome for Clinical Trials in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Survival from acute respiratory distress syndrome is improving, and outcomes beyond mortality may be important for testing new treatments. The "ventilator-free days" score, is an established composite that equates ventilation on day 28 to death. A hierarchical outcome treating death as a worse than prolonged ventilation would enhance face validity, but performance characteristics and reporting of such an outcome are unknown. We therefore evaluated the performance of a novel hierarchical composite endpoint, the Alive and Ventilator Free score.

DESIGN

Using data from four Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network clinical trials, we compared Alive and Ventilator Free to the ventilator-free days score. Alive and Ventilator Free compares each patient with every other patient in a win-lose-tie for each comparison. Duration of mechanical ventilation is only compared if both patients survived. We evaluated power of Alive and Ventilator Free versus ventilator-free days score under various circumstances.

SETTING

ICUs within the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network.

PATIENTS

Individuals enrolled in four Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network trials.

INTERVENTIONS

None for this analysis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Within the four trials (n = 2,410 patients), Alive and Ventilator Free and ventilator-free days score had similar power, with Alive and Ventilator Free slightly more powerful when a mortality difference was present, and ventilator-free days score slightly more powerful with a difference in duration of mechanical ventilation. Alive and Ventilator Free less often found in favor of treatments that increased mortality and increased days free of ventilation among survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

A hierarchical composite endpoint, Alive and Ventilator Free, preserves statistical power while improving face validity. Alive and Ventilator Free is less prone to favor a treatment with discordant effects on survival and days free of ventilation. This general approach can support complex outcome hierarchies with multiple constituent outcomes. Approaches to interpretation of differences in Alive and Ventilator Free are also presented.

Postseptic Cognitive Impairment and Expression of APOE in Peripheral Blood: The Cognition After SepsiS (CASS) Observational Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment after sepsis is an important clinical problem. Determinants of postseptic cognitive impairment are not well understood. We thus undertook a systems biology approach to exploring a possible role for apolipoprotein E (APOE) in postseptic cognitive impairment.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational cohort.

SETTING

Intermountain Medical Center, a tertiary referral center in Utah.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Patients with sepsis admitted to study intensive care units.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

METHODS

We obtained peripheral blood for deep sequencing of RNA and followed up survivors at 6 months with a battery of cognitive instruments. We defined cognitive impairment based on the 6-month Hayling test of executive function. In our primary analysis, we employed weighted network analysis. Secondarily, we compared variation in gene expression between patients with normal versus impaired cognition.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We enrolled 40 patients, of whom 34 were follow-up eligible and 31 (91%) completed follow-up; 1 patient's RNA sample was degraded-the final analytic cohort was 30 patients. Mean Hayling test score was 5.8 (standard deviation 1.1), which represented 20% with impaired executive function. The network module containing APOE was dominated by low-expression genes, with no association on primary analysis (P = .8). Secondary analyses suggested several potential lines of future investigation, including oxidative stress.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective pilot cohort, executive dysfunction affected 1 in 5 survivors of sepsis. The APOE gene was sparsely transcribed in peripheral leukocytes and not associated with cognitive impairment. Future lines of research are suggested.

Driving pressure is not associated with mortality in mechanically ventilated patients without ARDS

Background

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), low tidal volume ventilation has been associated with reduced mortality. Driving pressure (tidal volume normalized to respiratory system compliance) may be an even stronger predictor of ARDS survival than tidal volume. We sought to study whether these associations hold true in acute respiratory failure patients without ARDS.

Methods

This is a retrospectively cohort analysis of mechanically ventilated adult patients admitted to ICUs from 12 hospitals over 2 years. We used natural language processing of chest radiograph reports and data from the electronic medical record to identify patients who had ARDS. We used multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear models to estimate associations between tidal volume, driving pressure, and respiratory system compliance with adjusted 30-day mortality using covariates of Acute Physiology Score (APS), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), age, and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio.

Results

We studied 2641 patients; 48% had ARDS (n = 1273). Patients with ARDS had higher mean APS (25 vs. 23, p < .001) but similar CCI (4 vs. 3, p = 0.6) scores. For non-ARDS patients, tidal volume was associated with increased adjusted mortality (OR 1.18 per 1 mL/kg PBW increase in tidal volume, CI 1.04 to 1.35, p = 0.010). We observed no association between driving pressure or respiratory compliance and mortality in patients without ARDS. In ARDS patients, both ΔP (OR1.1, CI 1.06–1.14, p < 0.001) and tidal volume (OR 1.17, CI 1.04–1.31, p = 0.007) were associated with mortality.

Conclusions

In a large retrospective analysis of critically ill non-ARDS patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we found that tidal volume was associated with 30-day mortality, while driving pressure was not.