Interventions associated with survival after prehospital intubation in the deployed combat setting

INTRODUCTION

Airway compromise is the second leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. Prehospital airway management is often unavoidable in a kinetic combat environment and expected to increase in future wars where timely evacuation will be unreliable and air superiority not guaranteed. We compared characteristics of survivors to non-survivors among combat casualties undergoing prehospital airway intubation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We requested all Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) encounters during 2007-2023 with documentation of any airway intervention or assessment within the first 72-h after injury. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all casualties with intubation documented in the prehospital setting. We used descriptive and inferential statistical analysis to compare survivors through 7 days post injury versus non-survivors. We constructed 3 multivariable logistic regression models to test for associations between interventions and 7-day survival after adjusting for injury severity score, mechanism of injury, and receipt of sedatives, paralytics, and blood products.

RESULTS

There were 1377 of 48,301 patients with documentation of prehospital intubation in a combat setting. Of these, 1028 (75%) survived through 7 days post injury. Higher proportions of survivors received ketamine, paralytic agents, parenteral opioids, and parenteral benzodiazepines; there was no difference in the proportions of survivors versus non-survivors receiving etomidate. The multivariable models consistently demonstrated positive associations between 7-day survival and receipt of non-depolarizing paralytics and opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an association between non-depolarizing paralytic and opioid receipt with 7-day survival among patients undergoing prehospital intubation. The literature would benefit from future multi-center randomized controlled trials to establish optimal pharmacologic strategies for trauma patients undergoing prehospital intubation.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A-Associated Hospitalization, Organ Failure, and Death: United States, 2022-2023

BACKGROUND

Influenza circulation during the 2022-2023 season in the United States largely returned to pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-pandemic patterns and levels. Influenza A(H3N2) viruses were detected most frequently this season, predominately clade 3C.2a1b.2a, a close antigenic match to the vaccine strain.

METHODS

To understand effectiveness of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failure, and death, a multicenter sentinel surveillance network in the United States prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness between 1 October 2022, and 28 February 2023. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failures, and death were measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients.

RESULTS

A total of 3707 patients, including 714 influenza cases (33% vaccinated) and 2993 influenza- and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls (49% vaccinated) were analyzed. VE against influenza-associated hospitalization was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%-46%) and varied by age (18-64 years: 47% [30%-60%]; ≥65 years: 28% [10%-43%]), and virus (A[H3N2]: 29% [6%-46%], A[H1N1]: 47% [23%-64%]). VE against more severe influenza-associated outcomes included: 41% (29%-50%) against influenza with hypoxemia treated with supplemental oxygen; 65% (56%-72%) against influenza with respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal failure treated with organ support; and 66% (40%-81%) against influenza with respiratory failure treated with invasive mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

During an early 2022-2023 influenza season with a well-matched influenza vaccine, vaccination was associated with reduced risk of influenza-associated hospitalization and organ failure.

Effect of high dose vitamin D supplementation on subsequent immune responses to administration of the live herpes zoster vaccine to long-term care residents

Thirty-three long-term care residents (mean age 76.5 years), who were participating in a study in which they were randomized to receive either oral daily standard dose (400-1000 IU/day) 25-hydroxy vitamin D (vitamin D3) (SD) or high dose (3000-4000 IU/day) (HD) vitamin D3, were vaccinated with the live, attenuated herpes zoster vaccine. Blood was drawn at vaccination and three weeks later to determine varicella-zoster virus (VZV) antibody and T-cell mediated immune responses. ELISA and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly, but to the same extent, in both groups. The antibody avidity significantly increased from pre- to post-vaccination only in the HD group. VZV-CMI, as measured by FLUOROSPOT significantly increased post-vaccination in both groups, but the difference in interferon-γ spot-forming cells (SFC) and interleukin-2 SFC was lower in the HD than SD group. The increase in VZV-CMI correlated inversely with circulating regulatory T cells in the HD group. We conclude that pre-treatment with HD vitamin D3 does not appreciably enhance the antibody response to a live vaccine and that VZV-CMI responses were diminished in HD vitamin D3 recipients.

Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus vs COVID-19 and Influenza Among Hospitalized US Adults

Importance

On June 21, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older using shared clinical decision-making. Understanding the severity of RSV disease in adults can help guide this clinical decision-making.

Objective

To describe disease severity among adults hospitalized with RSV and compare it with the severity of COVID-19 and influenza disease by vaccination status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 US states from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Clinical data during each patient's hospitalization were collected using standardized forms. Data were analyzed from August to October 2023.

Exposures

RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Using multivariable logistic regression, severity of RSV disease was compared with COVID-19 and influenza severity, by COVID-19 and influenza vaccination status, for a range of clinical outcomes, including the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death.

Results

Of 7998 adults (median [IQR] age, 67 [54-78] years; 4047 [50.6%] female) included, 484 (6.1%) were hospitalized with RSV, 6422 (80.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1092 (13.7%) were hospitalized with influenza. Among patients with RSV, 58 (12.0%) experienced IMV or death, compared with 201 of 1422 unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 (14.1%) and 458 of 5000 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (9.2%), as well as 72 of 699 unvaccinated patients with influenza (10.3%) and 20 of 393 vaccinated patients with influenza (5.1%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of IMV or in-hospital death were not significantly different among patients hospitalized with RSV and unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.13; P = .22) or influenza (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; P = .35); however, the odds of IMV or death were significantly higher among patients hospitalized with RSV compared with vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .03) or influenza disease (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.62-4.86; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among adults hospitalized in this US cohort during the 16 months before the first RSV vaccine recommendations, RSV disease was less common but similar in severity compared with COVID-19 or influenza disease among unvaccinated patients and more severe than COVID-19 or influenza disease among vaccinated patients for the most serious outcomes of IMV or death.

Association between monoclonal antibody therapy, vaccination, and longer-term symptom resolution after acute COVID-19

Effective therapies for reducing post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) symptoms are lacking. Evaluate the association between monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment or COVID-19 vaccination with symptom recovery in COVID-19 participants. The longitudinal survey-based cohort study was conducted from April 2021 to January 2022 across a multihospital Colorado health system. Adults ≥18 years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were included. Primary exposures were mAb treatment and COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome was time to symptom resolution after SARS-CoV-2 positive test date. The secondary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. COVID-19 vaccination, but not mAb therapy, was associated with a shorter time to symptom resolution. Both were associated with lower 28-day hospitalization.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in COVID-19 outpatients during BQ.1, BQ.1.1., and XBB.1.5 predominant omicron variants in three U.S. health systems: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir (NMV-r), a protease inhibitor with in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, can reduce risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among high-risk individuals infected with earlier variants, but less is known about its effectiveness against omicron variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. We sought to evaluate effectiveness of NMV-r in BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 omicron variants by comparing hospitalisation rates to NMV-r treated patients during a previous omicron phase and to contemporaneous untreated patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-world data from three health systems in Colorado and Utah, and compared hospitalisation rates in NMV-r-treated patients in a BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant-predominant (first) phase (April 3, 2022-November 12, 2022), with a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 variant-predominant (second) phase (November 13, 2022-March 7, 2023). In the primary analysis, we used Firth logistic regression with a two-segment (phase) linear time model, and pre-specified non-inferiority bounds for the mean change between segments. In a pre-specified secondary analysis, we inferred NMV-r effectiveness in a cohort of treated and untreated patients infected during the second phase. For both analyses, the primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. Subgroup analyses assessed treatment effect heterogeneity.

Findings

In the primary analysis, 28-day all-cause hospitalisation rates in NMV-r treated patients in the second phase (n = 12,061) were non-inferior compared to the first phase (n = 25,075) (198 [1.6%] vs. 345 [1.4%], adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.76 [95% CI 0.54-1.06]), with consistent results among secondary endpoints and key subgroups. Secondary cohort analyses revealed additional evidence for NMV-r effectiveness, with reduced 28-day hospitalisation rates among treated patients compared to untreated patients during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 predominant phase (198/12,061 [1.6%] vs. 376/10,031 [3.7%], aOR 0.34 [95% CI 0.30-0.38), findings robust to additional sensitivity analyses.

Interpretation

Real-world evidence from major US healthcare systems suggests ongoing NMV-r effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5-predominant phase in the U.S, supporting its continued use in similar patient populations.

Funding

U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Interim Estimates of 2023-24 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States

In the United States, annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months. Using data from four vaccine effectiveness (VE) networks during the 2023-24 influenza season, interim influenza VE was estimated among patients aged ≥6 months with acute respiratory illness-associated medical encounters using a test-negative case-control study design. Among children and adolescents aged 6 months-17 years, VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits ranged from 59% to 67% and against influenza-associated hospitalization ranged from 52% to 61%. Among adults aged ≥18 years, VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits ranged from 33% to 49% and against hospitalization from 41% to 44%. VE against influenza A ranged from 46% to 59% for children and adolescents and from 27% to 46% for adults across settings. VE against influenza B ranged from 64% to 89% for pediatric patients in outpatient settings and from 60% to 78% for all adults across settings. These findings demonstrate that the 2023-24 seasonal influenza vaccine is effective at reducing the risk for medically attended influenza virus infection. CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months who have not yet been vaccinated this season get vaccinated while influenza circulates locally.

Interim Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥18 Years - VISION and IVY Networks, September 2023-January 2024

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine.

Viral and Host Factors Are Associated With Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Persistent mortality in adults hospitalized due to acute COVID-19 justifies pursuit of disease mechanisms and potential therapies. The aim was to evaluate which virus and host response factors were associated with mortality risk among participants in Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3) trials.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of 2625 adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection randomized to 1 of 5 antiviral products or matched placebo in 114 centers on 4 continents. Uniform, site-level collection of participant baseline clinical variables was performed. Research laboratories assayed baseline upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and plasma for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (viral Ag), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Associations between factors and time to mortality by 90 days were assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Viral Ag ≥4500 ng/L (vs <200 ng/L; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.07; 1.29-3.34), viral RNA (<35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.42; 1.09-5.34], ≥35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.84; 1.29-6.28], vs below detection), respiratory support (<4 L O2 [aHR, 1.84; 1.06-3.22]; ≥4 L O2 [aHR, 4.41; 2.63-7.39], or noninvasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula [aHR, 11.30; 6.46-19.75] vs no oxygen), renal impairment (aHR, 1.77; 1.29-2.42), and IL-6 >5.8 ng/L (aHR, 2.54 [1.74-3.70] vs ≤5.8 ng/L) were significantly associated with mortality risk in final adjusted analyses. Viral Ag, viral RNA, and IL-6 were not measured in real-time.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline virus-specific, clinical, and biological variables are strongly associated with mortality risk within 90 days, revealing potential pathogen and host-response therapeutic targets for acute COVID-19 disease.

Effectiveness of subcutaneous monoclonal antibody treatment in emergency department outpatients with COVID-19

Objectives

To evaluate whether subcutaneous neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment given in the emergency department (ED) setting was associated with reduced hospitalizations, mortality, and severity of disease when compared to nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

This retrospective observational cohort study of ED patients utilized a propensity score-matched analysis to compare patients who received subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab mAb to nontreated COVID-19 control patients in November-December 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 28 days, and secondary outcomes were 90-day hospitalization, 28- and 90-day mortality, and ED length of stay (LOS).

Results

Of 1340 patients included in the analysis, 490 received subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, and 850 did not received them. There was no difference observed for 28-day hospitalization (8.4% vs. 10.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.79, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.53-1.17) or 90-day hospitalization (11.6% vs. 12.5%; aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.31). However, mortality at both the 28-day and 90-day timepoints was substantially lower in the treated group (28-day 0.6% vs. 3.1%; aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.41; 90-day 0.6% vs. 3.9%; aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.36). Among hospitalized patients, treated patients had shorter hospital LOS (5.7 vs. 11.4 days; adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.69), shorter intensive care unit LOS (3.8 vs. 10.2 days; aRR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.35), and the severity of hospitalization was lower (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.97) compared to untreated.

Conclusions

Among ED patients who presented for symptomatic COVID-19 during the Delta variant phase, ED subcutaneous casirivimab/imdevimab treatment was not associated with a decrease in hospitalizations. However, treatment was associated with lower mortality at 28 and 90 days, hospital LOS, and overall severity of illness.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28.

Results

Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effectiveness of Sotrovimab in Preventing COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations or Deaths Among US Veterans During Omicron BA.1

Background

The real-world clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization or mortality among high-risk patients diagnosed with COVID-19, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant, needs further research.

Method

Using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, we adopted a target trial emulation design in our study. Veterans aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 between December 1, 2021, and April 4, 2022, were included. Patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 2816) as part of routine clinical care were compared with all eligible but untreated patients (n = 11,250). Cox proportional hazards modeling estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between receipt of sotrovimab and outcomes.

Results

Most (90%) sotrovimab recipients were ≥50 years old, and 64% had ≥2 mRNA vaccine doses or ≥1 dose of Ad26.COV2. During the period that BA.1 was dominant, compared with patients not treated, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 70% lower risk of hospitalization or mortality within 30 days (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.40). During BA.2 dominance, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 71% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-0.98) lower risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, emergency room visits, or urgent care visits (defined as severe COVID-19) compared with patients not treated.

Conclusions

Using national real-world data from high-risk and predominantly vaccinated veterans, administration of sotrovimab, compared with contemporary standard treatment regimens, was associated with reduced risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality during the Omicron BA.1 period.

Real-world data to evaluate effects of a multi-level dissemination strategy on access, outcomes, and equity of monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19

Introduction

Multi-level dissemination strategies are needed to increase equitable access to effective treatment for high-risk outpatients with COVID-19, particularly among patients from disproportionately affected communities. Yet assessing population-level impact of such strategies can be challenging.

Methods

In collaboration with key contributors in Colorado, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate a multi-level dissemination strategy for neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment. Real-world data included county-level, de-identified output from a statewide mAb referral registry linked with publicly available epidemiological data. Outcomes included weekly number of mAb referrals, unique referring clinicians, and COVID-19 hospitalization rates. We assessed weekly changes in outcomes after dissemination strategies launched in July 2021.

Results

Overall, mAb referrals increased from a weekly average of 3.0 to 15.5, with an increase of 1.3 to 42.1 additional referrals per county in each post-period week (p < .05). Number of referring clinicians increased from a weekly average of 2.2 to 9.7, with an additional 1.5 to 22.2 unique referring clinicians observed per county per week beginning 5 weeks post-launch (p < .001). Larger effects were observed in communities specifically prioritized by the dissemination strategies. There were no observed differences in COVID-19 hospitalization rates between counties with and without mAb treatment sites.

Conclusion

Real-world data can be used to estimate population impact of multi-level dissemination strategies. The launch of these strategies corresponded with increases in mAb referrals, but no apparent population-level effects on hospitalization outcomes. Strengths of this analytic approach include pragmatism and efficiency, whereas limitations include inability to control for other contemporaneous trends.

Provider Perceptions of Oxygenation Strategies for Critically Ill Trauma Patients With and Without Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

BACKGROUND

Hypoxia and hyperoxia (pulse oximetry [SpO2] > 96%) are associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients. However, provider practices regarding oxygenation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients are unknown. This study assesses views on oxygenation of critically ill trauma patients with and without TBI and how this varies between Neurological ICU (NeuroICU) and Surgical-Trauma ICU (STICU) providers.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional survey of Level I trauma center's NeuroICU and STICU providers. We used Likert scales, yes-no questions, and multiple-choice case-based scenarios to characterize provider views on oxygenation with descriptive statistics to characterize responses. Significant differences regarding TBI and non-TBI patients or NeuroICU and STICU providers were determined using Fisher's exact test and a P-value of .05.

RESULTS

A total of 83 providers initiated the survey, and 53 providers completed it. Most providers identified a threshold SpO2 < 92% for the administration of supplemental oxygen in critically ill TBI patients. A total of 9% of providers "somewhat or completely agreed" that they were more likely to give supplemental oxygen to a critically ill trauma patient with TBI than one without TBI and the same SpO2. A total of 48% of providers selected an SpO2 < 90% as the point at which supplemental oxygen should be initiated in patients without TBI, compared to 27% of providers in patients with TBI (P < .01). This threshold for supplemental oxygen use varied by provider type for non-TBI patients, but not for TBI patients (30% NeuroICU and 69% STICU providers selected SpO2 < 90% in non-TBI, P < .05; 30% NeuroICU and 35% STICU providers selected SpO2 < 90% in TBI, P = .85).

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care providers at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital approach the oxygenation of critically ill trauma patients with and without TBI differently. Specifically, critical care respondents accepted a different lower oxygen saturation threshold for TBI and non-TBI patients. NeuroICU and STICU respondents differed in their threshold for the down-titration of supplemental oxygen. Targeted education for critical care providers may reduce these discrepancies and optimize oxygen use.

Market Analysis of Video Laryngoscopy Equipment for the Role 1 Setting

INTRODUCTION

Airway compromise is the second leading cause of potentially preventable prehospital combat death. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) remains the most common role 1 airway intervention. Video laryngoscopy (VL) is superior to direct laryngoscopy (DL) for first-attempt intubation, especially in less-experienced providers and for trauma patients. The cost has been a major challenge in pushing VL technology far-forward; however, the cost of equipment continues to become more affordable. We conducted a market analysis of VL devices under $10,000 for possible options for role 1.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Google, PubMed, and the Food and Drug Administration database from August 2022 to January 2023 with a combination of several keywords to identify current VL market options under $10,000. After identifying relevant manufacturers, we then reviewed individual manufacturer or distributor websites for pricing data and system specifications. We noted several characteristics regarding VL device design for comparison. These include monitor features, size, modularity, system durability, battery life, and reusability. When necessary, we requested formal price quotes from respective companies.

RESULTS

We identified 17 VL options under $10,000 available for purchase, 14 of which were priced below $5,000 for individual units. Infium (n = 3) and Vimed Medical (n = 4) provided the largest number of unique models. VL options under $10,000 exist in both reusable and disposable modalities. These modalities included separate monitors as well as monitors attached to the VL handle. Disposable options, on a per-unit basis, cost less than reusable options.

CONCLUSIONS

Several VL options exist within our goal price point in both reusable and disposable options. Clinical studies assessing the technology performance of ETI and deliberate downselection are needed to identify the most cost-effective solution for role 1 dispersion.

Disease Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Compared with COVID-19 and Influenza Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥60 Years - IVY Network, 20 U.S. States, February 2022-May 2023

On June 21, 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for adults aged ≥60 years, offered to individual adults using shared clinical decision-making. Informed use of these vaccines requires an understanding of RSV disease severity. To characterize RSV-associated severity, 5,784 adults aged ≥60 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 U.S. states during February 1, 2022-May 31, 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare RSV disease severity with COVID-19 and influenza severity on the basis of the following outcomes: 1) standard flow (<30 L/minute) oxygen therapy, 2) high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 3) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 4) invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Overall, 304 (5.3%) enrolled adults were hospitalized with RSV, 4,734 (81.8%) with COVID-19 and 746 (12.9%) with influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive standard flow oxygen, HFNC or NIV, and ICU admission than were those hospitalized with COVID-19 or influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive IMV or die compared with patients hospitalized with influenza (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.33-3.26). Among hospitalized older adults, RSV was less common, but was associated with more severe disease than COVID-19 or influenza. High disease severity in older adults hospitalized with RSV is important to consider in shared clinical decision-making regarding RSV vaccination.

Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: Does Use of a Video Laryngoscope Facilitate Both Steps of the Procedure?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of the use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on each step of emergency intubation: laryngoscopy (step 1) and intubation of the trachea (step 2).

METHODS

In a secondary observational analysis of data from 2 multicenter, randomized trials that enrolled critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation but did not control for laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models examining the 1) the association between laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope) and the Cormack-Lehane grade of view and 2) the interaction between grade of view, laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), and the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,786 patients: 467 (26.2%) in the direct laryngoscope group and 1,319 (73.9%) in the video laryngoscope group. The use of a video laryngoscope was associated with an improved grade of view as compared with a direct laryngoscope (adjusted odds ratio for increasingly favorable grade of view 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47 to 3.99). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 83.2% of patients in the video laryngoscope group and 72.2% of patients in the direct laryngoscope group (absolute difference 11.1%, 95% CI 6.5% to 15.6%). Video laryngoscope use modified the association between grade of view and successful intubation on the first attempt such that intubation on the first attempt was similar between video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope at a grade 1 view and higher for video laryngoscope than direct laryngoscope at grade 2 to 4 views (P<.001 for interaction term).

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope was associated both with a better view of the vocal cords and with a higher probability of successfully intubating the trachea when the view of the vocal cords was incomplete in this observational analysis. However, a multicenter, randomized trial directly comparing the effect of a video laryngoscope with a direct laryngoscope on the grade of view, success, and complications is needed.

Defining Successful Intubation on the First Attempt Using Both Laryngoscope and Endotracheal Tube Insertions: A Secondary Analysis of Clinical Trial Data

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Successful intubation on the first attempt has historically been defined as successful placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) using a single laryngoscope insertion. More recent studies have defined successful placement of an ETT using a single laryngoscope insertion followed by a single ETT insertion. We sought to estimate the prevalence of first-attempt success using these 2 definitions and estimate their associations with the duration of intubation and serious complications.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of data from 2 multicenter randomized trials of critically ill adults being intubated in the emergency department or ICU. We calculated the percent difference in successful intubations on the first attempt, median difference in the duration of intubation, and percent difference in the development of serious complications by definition.

RESULTS

The study population included 1,863 patients. Successful intubation on the first attempt decreased by 4.9% (95% confidence interval 2.5% to 7.3%) when defined as 1 laryngoscope insertion followed by 1 ETT insertion (81.2%) compared with when defined as only 1 laryngoscope insertion (86.0%). When successful intubation with 1 laryngoscope and 1 ETT insertion was compared with 1 laryngoscope and multiple ETT insertions, the median duration of intubation decreased by 35.0 seconds (95% confidence interval 8.9 to 61.1 seconds).

CONCLUSION

Defining successful intubation on the first attempt as placement of an ETT in the trachea using 1 laryngoscope and 1 ETT insertion identifies attempts with the shortest apneic time.

Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 μg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28.

RESULTS

Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761.

FINDINGS

Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Modifiable in-hospital factors for 12-month global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and depression symptoms in adults hospitalized with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

We sought to identify potentially modifiable in-hospital factors associated with global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months.

METHODS

This was a multi-center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. The following in-hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in-person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve-month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA-Blind. Twelve-month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively.

FINDINGS

Two hundred three patients completed the 12-month follow-up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA-Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12-month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12-month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long-term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms).

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab for preventing COVID-19 during the Omicron surge: retrospective analysis of National Veterans Health Administration electronic data

Little is known regarding the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated immunocompromised patients, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant. In this retrospective cohort study with exact matching and propensity score adjustment within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, we selected immunocompromised veterans age ≥18 years as of 1 January 2022, receiving VA healthcare. We compared a cohort of 1,878 patients treated with at least one dose of intramuscular tixagevimab/cilgavimab to 7,014 matched controls selected from patients who met study criteria but were not treated. Patients were followed through 15 June 2022, or until death, whichever occurred earlier. The primary outcome was a composite of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI for the association between receipt of tixagevimab/cilgavimab and outcomes. Most (73%) tixagevimab/cilgavimab recipients were ≥65 years old, and 80% had ≥3 mRNA vaccine doses or two doses of Ad26.COV2. Compared to matched controls, recipients had a lower incidence of the composite COVID-19 outcome (49/1,878 [2.6%] versus 312/7,014 [4.4%]; HR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.52), and individually SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88), COVID-19 hospitalization (HR 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.59), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). In conclusion, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was associated with lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 during the Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.2.12.1 surge. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 remains an ongoing global health crisis that justifies continued efforts to validate and expand, when possible, knowledge on the efficacy of available vaccines and treatments. Clinical trials have been limited due to fast tracking of medications for mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic for the general population. We present a real-world analysis, using electronic health record data, of the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab for the prevention of COVID-19 infection in the unique population of U.S. veterans. Unlike those in the PROVENT clinical trial from which the emergency use authorization for tixagevimab/cilgavimab as a preventative treatment arose, the veterans population is highly immunocompromised and nearly 96% totally vaccinated. These demographics allowed us to analyze the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in preventing COVID-19 under different conditions in a more fragile population than that of the initial clinical trial.

Changing Severity and Epidemiology of Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States After Introduction of COVID-19 Vaccines, March 2021-August 2022

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the changing epidemiology of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs research priorities and public health policies.

METHODS

Among adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 between 11 March 2021, and 31 August 2022 at 21 hospitals in 18 states, those hospitalized during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-predominant period (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5) were compared to those from earlier Alpha- and Delta-predominant periods. Demographic characteristics, biomarkers within 24 hours of admission, and outcomes, including oxygen support and death, were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 9825 patients, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 years (47-72), 47% were women, and 21% non-Hispanic Black. From the Alpha-predominant period (Mar-Jul 2021; N = 1312) to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineage-predominant period (Jun-Aug 2022; N = 1307): the percentage of patients who had ≥4 categories of underlying medical conditions increased from 11% to 21%; those vaccinated with at least a primary COVID-19 vaccine series increased from 7% to 67%; those ≥75 years old increased from 11% to 33%; those who did not receive any supplemental oxygen increased from 18% to 42%. Median (IQR) highest C-reactive protein and D-dimer concentration decreased from 42.0 mg/L (9.9-122.0) to 11.5 mg/L (2.7-42.8) and 3.1 mcg/mL (0.8-640.0) to 1.0 mcg/mL (0.5-2.2), respectively. In-hospital death peaked at 12% in the Delta-predominant period and declined to 4% during the BA.4/BA.5-predominant period.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to adults hospitalized during early COVID-19 variant periods, those hospitalized during Omicron-variant COVID-19 were older, had multiple co-morbidities, were more likely to be vaccinated, and less likely to experience severe respiratory disease, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and death.

Total and Subgenomic RNA Viral Load in Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Alpha, Delta, and Omicron Variants

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomic and subgenomic RNA levels are frequently used as a correlate of infectiousness. The impact of host factors and SARS-CoV-2 lineage on RNA viral load is unclear.

METHODS

Total nucleocapsid (N) and subgenomic N (sgN) RNA levels were measured by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in specimens from 3204 individuals hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 21 hospitals. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were used to estimate RNA viral load. The impact of time of sampling, SARS-CoV-2 variant, age, comorbidities, vaccination, and immune status on N and sgN Ct values were evaluated using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Mean Ct values at presentation for N were 24.14 (SD 4.53) for non-variants of concern, 25.15 (SD 4.33) for Alpha, 25.31 (SD 4.50) for Delta, and 26.26 (SD 4.42) for Omicron. N and sgN RNA levels varied with time since symptom onset and infecting variant but not with age, comorbidity, immune status, or vaccination. When normalized to total N RNA, sgN levels were similar across all variants.

CONCLUSIONS

RNA viral loads were similar among hospitalized adults, irrespective of infecting variant and known risk factors for severe COVID-19. Total N and subgenomic RNA N viral loads were highly correlated, suggesting that subgenomic RNA measurements add little information for the purposes of estimating infectivity.

Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults

BACKGROUND

Whether video laryngoscopy as compared with direct laryngoscopy increases the likelihood of successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults is uncertain.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 17 emergency departments and intensive care units (ICUs), we randomly assigned critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation to the video-laryngoscope group or the direct-laryngoscope group. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications during intubation; severe complications were defined as severe hypoxemia, severe hypotension, new or increased vasopressor use, cardiac arrest, or death.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped for efficacy at the time of the single preplanned interim analysis. Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis (91.5% of whom underwent intubation that was performed by an emergency medicine resident or a critical care fellow), successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 of the 705 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 of the 712 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct-laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; DEVICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05239195.).

Prophylactic Administration of Vasopressors Prior to Emergency Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter Clinical Trials

Hypotension affects approximately 40% of critically ill patients undergoing emergency intubation and is associated with an increased risk of death. The objective of this study was to examine the association between prophylactic vasopressor administration and the incidence of peri-intubation hypotension and other clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials. The clinical effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration was estimated using a one-to-one propensity-matched cohort of patients with and without prophylactic vasopressors.

SETTING

Seven emergency departments and 17 ICUs across the United States.

PATIENTS

One thousand seven hundred ninety-eight critically ill patients who underwent emergency intubation at the study sites between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was peri-intubation hypotension defined as a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg occurring between induction and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. A total of 187 patients (10%) received prophylactic vasopressors prior to intubation. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic vasopressors, those who did were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, were more likely to have a diagnosis of sepsis, had lower pre-induction systolic blood pressures, and were more likely to be on continuous vasopressor infusions prior to intubation. In our propensity-matched cohort, prophylactic vasopressor administration was not associated with reduced risk of peri-intubation hypotension (41% vs 32%; p = 0.08) or change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (-12 vs -11 mm Hg; p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of prophylactic vasopressors was not associated with a lower incidence of peri-intubation hypotension in our propensity-matched analysis. To address potential residual confounding, randomized clinical trials should examine the effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration on peri-intubation outcomes.

Individualized Treatment Effects of Bougie versus Stylet for Tracheal Intubation in Critical Illness

Rationale: A recent randomized trial found that using a bougie did not increase the incidence of successful intubation on first attempt in critically ill adults. The average effect of treatment in a trial population, however, may differ from effects for individuals. Objective: We hypothesized that application of a machine learning model to data from a clinical trial could estimate the effect of treatment (bougie vs. stylet) for individual patients based on their baseline characteristics ("individualized treatment effects"). Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the BOUGIE (Bougie or Stylet in Patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently) trial. A causal forest algorithm was used to model differences in outcome probabilities by randomized group assignment (bougie vs. stylet) for each patient in the first half of the trial (training cohort). This model was used to predict individualized treatment effects for each patient in the second half (validation cohort). Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,102 patients in the BOUGIE trial, 558 (50.6%) were the training cohort, and 544 (49.4%) were the validation cohort. In the validation cohort, individualized treatment effects predicted by the model significantly modified the effect of trial group assignment on the primary outcome (P value for interaction = 0.02; adjusted qini coefficient, 2.46). The most important model variables were difficult airway characteristics, body mass index, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Conclusions: In this hypothesis-generating secondary analysis of a randomized trial with no average treatment effect and no treatment effect in any prespecified subgroups, a causal forest machine learning algorithm identified patients who appeared to benefit from the use of a bougie over a stylet and from the use of a stylet over a bougie using complex interactions between baseline patient and operator characteristics.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in outpatients with COVID-19 during the era of omicron variants including BA.4 and BA.5 in Colorado, USA: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir is a protease inhibitor with in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir can reduce the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among individuals at high risk infected with delta and early omicron variants. However, less is known about the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir during more recent BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron variant surges. We used our real-world data platform to evaluate the effect of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment on 28-day hospitalisation, mortality, and emergency department visits among outpatients with early symptomatic COVID-19 during a SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) predominant period in Colorado, USA.

METHODS

We did a propensity-matched, retrospective, observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, using records from a statewide health system in Colorado. We obtained data from the electronic health records of University of Colorado Health, the largest health system in Colorado, with 13 hospitals and 141 000 annual hospital admissions, and with numerous ambulatory sites and affiliated pharmacies around the state. Included patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir medication order. Exclusion criteria were an order for or administration of other SARS-CoV-2 treatments within 10 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospitalisation at the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than 10 days before a nirmatrelvir-ritonavir order. We propensity score matched patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with untreated patients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation.

FINDINGS

Among 28 167 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, 21 493 met the study inclusion criteria. 9881 patients received treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 11 612 were untreated. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation compared with no antiviral treatment (61 [0·9%] of 7168 patients vs 135 [1·4%] of 9361 patients, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·45 [95% CI 0·33-0·62]; p<0·0001). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was also associated with reduced 28-day all-cause mortality (two [<0·1%] of 7168 patients vs 15 [0·2%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·03-0·50]; p=0·0010). Using subsequent emergency department visits as a surrogate for clinically significant relapse, we observed a decrease after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (283 [3·9%] of 7168 patients vs 437 [4·7%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·74 [95% CI 0·63-0·87]; p=0·0002).

INTERPRETATION

Real-world evidence reported during a BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron surge showed an association between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment and reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and visits to the emergency department. With results that are among the first to suggest effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for non-hospitalised patients during an omicron period inclusive of BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, these data support nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an ongoing first-line treatment for adults acutely infected with SARS-CoV-2.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health.

Feasibility of Conducting a Military-Relevant Multi-Center Cohort Study to Assess Outcomes of Early Trauma Resuscitative Interventions in a Prolonged Care Civilian Setting

BACKGROUND

The Epidemiology and Outcomes of Prolonged Trauma Care (EpiC) study is a 4-year, prospective, observational, large-scale epidemiologic study in South Africa. EpiC will provide novel evidence on how early resuscitation impacts post-injury mortality and morbidity in patients experiencing prolonged care. A pilot study was performed to inform the main EpiC study. We assess outcomes and experiences from the pilot to evaluate overall feasibility of conducting the main EpiC study.

METHODS

The pilot was a prospective, multi-center, cohort study at 4 ambulance bases, 4 hospitals, and 2 mortuaries from 25-March to 27-August, 2021. Trauma patients 18 years or older were included. Data were manually collected via chart review and abstraction from clinical records at all research sites and inputted into REDCap. Feasibility metrics calculated were: screening efficiency; adequate enrollment; availability of key exposure and outcome data; and, availability of injury event date/time.

RESULTS

2303 patients were screened. Of the 981 included, 70% were male and the median age was 31.4 years. 6% had 1 or more trauma relevant comorbidity. 55% arrived by ambulance. 40% had penetrating injuries. 53% were critically injured. 33% had one or more critical interventions performed. Mortality was 5%. Four out of the 8 feasibility metrics exceed the predetermined threshold: screening ratio, monthly enrollment, % with significant organ failure, and missing injury date/time for EMS patients. Two feasibility metrics were borderline: key exposure and primary outcome. Two feasibility metrics fall below the feasibility threshold, which necessitate changes to the main EpiC study: % with infections and missing injury date/time for walk-in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The EpiC pilot study suggests that the main EpiC study is overall feasible. Improved data collection for infections and methods for missing data will be developed for the main study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological level III.

STUDY TYPE

Epidemiological.

Comparison of mRNA vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization by vaccination source: Immunization information systems, electronic medical records, and self-report-IVY Network, February 1-August 31, 2022

BACKGROUND

Accurate determination of COVID-19 vaccination status is necessary to produce reliable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. Data comparing differences in COVID-19 VE by vaccination sources (i.e., immunization information systems [IIS], electronic medical records [EMR], and self-report) are limited. We compared the number of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by each of these sources to assess agreement as well as differences in VE estimates using vaccination data from each individual source and vaccination data adjudicated from all sources combined.

METHODS

Adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-like illness at 21 hospitals in 18 U.S. states participating in the IVY Network during February 1-August 31, 2022, were enrolled. Numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by IIS, EMR, and self-report were compared in kappa agreement analyses. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to compare the odds of COVID-19 vaccination between SARS-CoV-2-positive case-patients and SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. VE was estimated using each source of vaccination data separately and all sources combined.

RESULTS

A total of 4499 patients were included. Patients with ≥1 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose were identified most frequently by self-report (n = 3570, 79 %), followed by IIS (n = 3272, 73 %) and EMR (n = 3057, 68 %). Agreement was highest between IIS and self-report for 4 doses with a kappa of 0.77 (95 % CI = 0.73-0.81). VE point estimates of 3 doses against COVID-19 hospitalization were substantially lower when using vaccination data from EMR only (VE = 31 %, 95 % CI = 16 %-43 %) than when using all sources combined (VE = 53 %, 95 % CI = 41 %-62%).

CONCLUSION

Vaccination data from EMR only may substantially underestimate COVID-19 VE.

Real-World Evidence of Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies for Preventing Hospitalization and Mortality in COVID-19 Outpatients

BACKGROUND

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients based on clinical trials completed early in the pandemic, which were underpowered for mortality and subgroup analyses. Real-world data studies are promising for further assessing rapidly deployed therapeutics.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Did mAb treatment prevent progression to severe disease and death across pandemic phases and based on risk factors, including prior vaccination status?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This observational cohort study included nonhospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from November 2020 to October 2021 using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. Using propensity matching, we selected approximately 2.5 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and hospitalization severity.

RESULTS

Of 36,077 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,675 receiving mAbs were matched to 6,677 patients not receiving mAbs. Compared with mAb-untreated patients, mAb-treated patients had lower all-cause hospitalization (4.0% vs 7.7%; adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and all-cause mortality (0.1% vs 0.9%; adjusted OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29) to day 28; differences persisted to day 90. Among hospitalized patients, mAb-treated patients had shorter hospital length of stay (5.8 vs 8.5 days) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (4.6% vs 16.6%). Results were similar for preventing hospitalizations during the Delta variant phase (adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50) and across subgroups. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent hospitalization was lower for subgroups with higher baseline risk of hospitalization; for example, multiple comorbidities (NNT = 17) and not fully vaccinated (NNT = 24) vs no comorbidities (NNT = 88) and fully vaccinated (NNT = 81).

INTERPRETATION

Real-world data revealed a strong association between receipt of mAbs and reduced hospitalization and deaths among COVID-19 outpatients across pandemic phases. Real-world data studies should be used to guide practice and policy decisions, including allocation of scarce resources.

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.

Improving prehospital traumatic shock care: implementation and clinical effectiveness of a pragmatic, quasi-experimental trial in a resource-constrained South African setting

OBJECTIVES

This project seeks to improve providers' practices and patient outcomes from prehospital (ie, ambulance-based) trauma care in a middle-income country using a novel implementation strategy to introduce a bundled clinical intervention.

DESIGN

We conduct a two-arm, controlled, mixed-methods, hybrid type II study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in the Western Cape Government Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system of South Africa.

INTERVENTIONS

We pragmatically implemented a simplified prehospital bundle of trauma care (with five core elements) using a novel workplace-based, peer-to-peer, rapid training format. We assigned the intervention and control sites.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed implementation effectiveness among EMS providers and stakeholders, using the RE-AIM framework. Clinical effectiveness was assessed at the patient level, using changes in Shock Index x Age (SIxAge). Indices and cut-offs were established a priori. We performed a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) analysis with a multivariable mixed effects model.

RESULTS

198 of 240 (82.5%) EMS providers participated, 93 (47%) intervention and 105 (53%) control, with similar baseline characteristics. The overall implementation effectiveness was excellent (80.6%): reach was good (65%), effectiveness was excellent (87%), implementation fidelity was good (72%) and adoption was excellent (87%). Participants and stakeholders generally reported very high satisfaction with the implementation strategy citing that it was a strong operational fit and effective educational model for their organisation. A total of 770 patients were included: 329 (42.7%) interventions and 441 (57.3%) controls, with no baseline differences. Intervention arm patients had more improved SIxAge compared with control at 4 months, which was not statistically significant (-1.4 D-I-D; p=0.35). There was no significant difference in change of SIxAge over time between the groups for any of the other time intervals (p=0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

In this quasi-experimental trial of bundled care using the novel workplace rapid training approach, we found overall excellent implementation effectiveness but no overall statistically significant clinical effectiveness.

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.

Real-World Evaluation of Bebtelovimab Effectiveness During the Period of COVID-19 Omicron Variants including BA.4/BA.5

OBJECTIVES

Bebtelovimab is an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody active against Omicron lineage variants authorized to treat high-risk outpatients with COVID-19. We sought to determine the real-world effectiveness of bebtelovimab during Omicron phases BA.2/BA2.12.1/BA4/BA5.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between April 6 to October 11, 2022, using health records linked to vaccine and mortality data. We used propensity scores to match of bebtelovimab-treated with untreated outpatients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, 28-day all-cause mortality, 28-day ED visits, maximum respiratory support level, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality among hospitalized patients. We used logistic regression to determine bebtelovimab treatment effectiveness.

RESULTS

Among 22,720 patients with SARS-COV-2 infection, 3,739 bebtelovimab-treated patients were matched to 5,423 untreated patients. Compared to no treatment, bebtelovimab was associated with lower odds of 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs. 2.1%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.53 [95%CI 0.37-0.74], p <0.001) as well as COVID-19 related hospitalization (1.0% vs. 2.0%, aOR:0.44 [95%CI 0.30-0.64], p <0.001). Bebtelovimab appeared more beneficial in lowering the odds of hospitalization among patients with two or more comorbidities (interaction p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

During the Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant phase, bebtelovimab was associated with lower hospitalization.

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.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREOXI trial of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen mask

Background

Hypoxemia is a common and life-threatening complication during emergency tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. The administration of supplemental oxygen prior to the procedure ("preoxygenation") decreases the risk of hypoxemia during intubation.

Research Question

Whether preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation prevents hypoxemia during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults, compared to preoxygenation with oxygen mask, remains uncertain.

Study Design and Methods

The PRagmatic trial Examining OXygenation prior to Intubation (PREOXI) is a prospective, multicenter, non-blinded randomized comparative effectiveness trial being conducted in 7 emergency departments and 17 intensive care units across the United States. The trial compares preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation versus oxygen mask among 1300 critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask prior to induction. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation <85% between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. The secondary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. Enrollment began on 10 March 2022 and is expected to conclude in 2023.

Interpretation

The PREOXI trial will provide important data on the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation and oxygen mask preoxygenation for the prevention of hypoxemia during emergency tracheal intubation. Specifying the protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to the conclusion of enrollment increases the rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability of the trial.

Clinical trial registration number

NCT05267652.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28.

Results

Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2)-Associated Hospitalized Illness: United States, 2022

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by an increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain.

METHODS

To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multistate sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2-positive controls.

RESULTS

A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2-negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2-positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95% CI: -14% to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (-54% to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (15-71%) among adults aged 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls.

CONCLUSIONS

During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted.

Change in effectiveness of sotrovimab for preventing hospitalization and mortality for at-risk COVID-19 outpatients during an Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1-predominant phase

OBJECTIVES

Sotrovimab effectively prevented progression to severe disease and mortality following infection with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. We sought to determine whether sotrovimab is similarly effective against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection.

METHODS

Observational cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from December 26, 2021, to March 10, 2022, using electronic health records from a statewide health system. We propensity-matched patients not receiving authorized treatment for each patient treated with sotrovimab. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality. We also propensity-matched sotrovimab-treated patients from the Omicron and Delta phases. Logistic regression was used to determine sotrovimab effectiveness during Omicron and between variant phases.

RESULTS

Of 30,247 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infected outpatients, we matched 1542 receiving sotrovimab to 3663 not receiving treatment. Sotrovimab treatment was not associated with reduced odds of 28-day hospitalization (2.5% vs 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.55, 1.19) or mortality (0.1% vs 0.2%; adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.07, 2.78). Between phases, the observed treatment OR was higher during Omicron than during Delta (OR 0.85 vs 0.39, respectively; interaction P-value = 0.053).

CONCLUSION

Real-world evidence demonstrated that sotrovimab was not associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization or mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Omicron BA.1 phase.

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.

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.

Effect of Fluvoxamine vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28.

Results

Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial in critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation

INTRODUCTION

Among critically ill patients undergoing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU), failure to visualise the vocal cords and intubate the trachea on the first attempt is associated with an increased risk of complications. Two types of laryngoscopes are commonly available: direct laryngoscopes and video laryngoscopes. For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, it remains uncertain whether the use of a video laryngoscope increases the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial being conducted in 7 EDs and 10 ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol up to 2000 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation with a laryngoscope. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to the use of a video laryngoscope or a direct laryngoscope for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is the incidence of severe complications between induction and 2 min after intubation, defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following: severe hypoxaemia (lowest oxygen saturation <80%); severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg or new or increased vasopressor administration); cardiac arrest or death. Enrolment began on 19 March 2022 and is expected to be completed in 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the single institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Human Research Protection Office of the Department of Defense. The results will be presented at scientific conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05239195).

Hyperoxia is associated with a greater risk for mortality in critically ill traumatic brain injury patients than in critically ill trauma patients without brain injury

OBJECTIVE

The role of hyperoxia in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the association between hyperoxia and mortality in critically ill TBI patients compared to critically ill trauma patients without TBI.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three regional trauma centers in Colorado, USA, between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018.

PATIENTS

We included 3464 critically injured adults who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 h of arrival and qualified for inclusion into the state trauma registry. We analyzed all available SpO2 values during the first seven ICU days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of time spent in hyperoxia (defined as SpO2 > 96%) and ventilator-free days.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In-hospital mortality occurred in 163 patients (10.7%) in the TBI group and 101 patients (5.2%) in the non-TBI group. After adjusting for ICU length of stay, TBI patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in hyperoxia versus non-TBI patients (p = 0.024). TBI status significantly modified the effect of hyperoxia on mortality. At each specific SpO2 level, the risk of mortality increases with increasing FiO2 for both patients with and without TBI. This trend was more pronounced at lower FiO2 and higher SpO2 values, where a greater number of patient observations were obtained. Among patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation, TBI patients required significantly more days of ventilation to day 28 than non-TBI patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Critically ill trauma patients with a TBI spend a greater proportion of time in hyperoxia compared to those without a TBI. TBI status significantly modified the effect of hyperoxia on mortality. Prospective clinical trials are needed to better assess a possible causal relationship.