Effect of Montelukast vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposed medications in treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Between January 27, 2023, and June 23, 2023, 1250 participants ≥30 years of age with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days, were included across 104 US sites to evaluate the use of montelukast. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or matched placebo for 14 days. 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 clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell. Results: Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 53 years (IQR 42-62), 60.2% were female, 64.6% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 56.3% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.92-1.12; P(efficacy) = 0.63]). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% confidence interval 10-11) in both groups. No deaths were reported and 2 hospitalizations were reported in each group; 36 participants reported healthcare utilization events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 18 in the montelukast group compared with 18 in the placebo group (HR 1.01; 95% CrI 0.45-1.84; P(efficacy)=0.48). Five participants experienced serious adverse events (3 with montelukast and 2 with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Limitations of Noninvasive Tests-Based Population-Level Risk Stratification Strategy for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are highly prevalent but underdiagnosed. AIMS: We used an electronic health record data network to test a population-level risk stratification strategy using noninvasive tests (NITs) of liver fibrosis. METHODS: Data were obtained from PCORnet® sites in the East, Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast United States from patients aged [Formula: see text] 18 with or without ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for NAFLD, NASH, and NASH-cirrhosis between 9/1/2017 and 8/31/2020. Average and standard deviations (SD) for Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), and Hepatic Steatosis Index (HSI) were estimated by site for each patient cohort. Sample-wide estimates were calculated as weighted averages across study sites. RESULTS: Of 11,875,959 patients, 0.8% and 0.1% were coded with NAFLD and NASH, respectively. NAFLD diagnosis rates in White, Black, and Hispanic patients were 0.93%, 0.50%, and 1.25%, respectively, and for NASH 0.19%, 0.04%, and 0.16%, respectively. Among undiagnosed patients, insufficient EHR data for estimating NITs ranged from 68% (FIB-4) to 76% (NFS). Predicted prevalence of NAFLD by HSI was 60%, with estimated prevalence of advanced fibrosis of 13% by NFS and 7% by FIB-4. Approximately, 15% and 23% of patients were classified in the intermediate range by FIB-4 and NFS, respectively. Among NAFLD-cirrhosis patients, a third had FIB-4 scores in the low or intermediate range. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several potential barriers to a population-level NIT-based screening strategy. HSI-based NAFLD screening appears unrealistic. Further research is needed to define merits of NFS- versus FIB-4-based strategies, which may identify different high-risk groups.

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.

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.).

Aspects of Program Engagement in an Online Physical Activity Intervention and Baseline Predictors of Engagement.

PURPOSE: Participant engagement in an online physical activity (PA) intervention is described and baseline factors related to engagement are identified. DESIGN: Longitudinal Study Within Randomized Controlled Trial. SETTING: Online/Internet. SAMPLE: Primary care patients (21-70 years). INTERVENTION: ActiveGOALS was a 3-month, self-directed online PA intervention (15 total lessons, remote coaching support, and a body-worn step-counter). MEASURES: Engagement was measured across six outcomes related to lesson completion (total number and time to complete), coach contact, and behavior tracking (PA, sedentary). Self-reported baseline factors were examined from seven domains (confidence, environment, health, health care, demographic, lifestyle, and quality of life). ANALYSIS: General linear and nonlinear mixed models were used to examine relationships between baseline factors and engagement outcomes within and across all domains. RESULTS: Seventy-nine participants were included in the sample (77.2% female; 74.7% white non-Hispanic). Program engagement was high (58.2% completed all lessons; PA was tracked ≥3 times/week for 11.3 ± 4.0 weeks on average). Average time between completed lessons (days) was longer than expected and participants only contacted their coach about 1 of every 3 weeks. Individual predictors related to health, health care, demographics, lifestyle, and quality of life were significantly related to engagement. CONCLUSION: Examining multiple aspects of engagement and a large number of potential predictors of engagement is likely needed to determine facilitators and barriers for high engagement in multi-faceted online intervention programs.

Lifestyle strategies after intentional weight loss: results from the MAINTAIN-pc randomized trial.

Introduction/Purpose: Weight maintenance following intentional weight loss is challenging and often unsuccessful. Physical activity and self-monitoring are strategies associated with successful weight loss maintenance. However, less is known about the type and number of lifestyle strategies used following intentional weight loss. The purpose of this study was to determine the types and amounts of strategies associated with successful long-term weight loss maintenance. Methods: Data from the 24-month Maintaining Activity and Nutrition Through Technology-Assisted Innovation in Primary Care (MAINTAIN-pc) trial were analyzed. MAINTAIN-pc recruited adults (n=194; 53.4±12.2 years of age, body mass index (BMI): 30.4±5.9 kg/m2, 74% female) with recent intentional weight loss of ≥5%, randomized to tracking tools plus coaching (i.e., coaching group) or tracking tools without coaching (i.e., tracking-only group). At baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, participants reported lifestyle strategies used in the past 6 months, including self-monitoring, group support, behavioral skills, and professional support. General linear models evaluated changes in the number of strategies over time between groups and the consistency of strategies used over the 24-month intervention. Results: At baseline, 100% used behavioral skills, 73% used group support, 69% used self-monitoring, and 68% used professional support in the past 6 months; at 24 months, these rates were 98%, 60%, 75%, and 61%, respectively. While the number of participants utilizing individual strategies did not change significantly over time, the overall number of strategies participants reported decreased. More strategies were used at baseline and 6 months compared to 12- and 24-month follow-ups. The coaching group used more strategies at months 6 and 12 than the tracking-only group. Consistent use of professional support strategies over the 24-month study period was associated with less weight regain. Conclusion: Weight loss maintenance interventions that incorporate continued follow-up and support from healthcare professionals are likely to prevent weight regain after intentional weight loss.

External validity in distributed data networks.

PURPOSE: While much has been written about how distributed networks address internal validity, external validity is rarely discussed. We aimed to define key terms related to external validity, discuss how they relate to distributed networks, and identify how three networks (the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System, the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies [CNODES], and the National Patient Centered Clinical Research Network [PCORnet]) deal with external validity. METHODS: We define external validity, target populations, target validity, generalizability, and transportability and describe how each relates to distributed networks. We then describe Sentinel, CNODES, and PCORnet and how each approaches these concepts, including a sample case study. RESULTS: Each network approaches external validity differently. As its target population is US citizens and it includes only US data, Sentinel primarily worries about lack of external validity by not including some segments of the population. The fact that CNODES includes Canadian, United States, and United Kingdom data forces them to seriously consider whether the United States and United Kingdom data will be transportable to Canadian citizens when they meta-analyze database-specific estimates. PCORnet, with its focus on study-specific cohorts and pragmatic trials, conducts more case-by-case explorations of external validity for each new analytic data set it generates. CONCLUSIONS: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to external validity within distributed networks. With these networks and comparisons between their findings becoming a key part of pharmacoepidemiology, there is a need to adapt tools for improving external validity to the distributed network setting.

Associations between sleep health and obesity and weight change in adults: The Daily24 Multisite Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of individual sleep domains and multidimensional sleep health with current overweight or obesity and 5-year weight change in adults. METHODS: We estimated sleep regularity, quality, timing, onset latency, sleep interruptions, duration, and napping using validated questionnaires. We calculated multidimensional sleep health using a composite score (total number of "good" sleep health indicators) and sleep phenotypes derived from latent class analysis. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between sleep and overweight or obesity. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between sleep and weight change (gain, loss, or maintenance) over a median of 1.66 years. RESULTS: The sample included 1016 participants with a median age of 52 (IQR = 37-65), who primarily identified as female (78%), White (79%), and college-educated (74%). We identified 3 phenotypes: good, moderate, and poor sleep. More regularity of sleep, sleep quality, and shorter sleep onset latency were associated with 37%, 38%, and 45% lower odds of overweight or obesity, respectively. The addition of each good sleep health dimension was associated with 16% lower adjusted odds of having overweight or obesity. The adjusted odds of overweight or obesity were similar between sleep phenotypes. Sleep, individual or multidimensional sleep health, was not associated with weight change. CONCLUSIONS: Multidimensional sleep health showed cross-sectional, but not longitudinal, associations with overweight or obesity. Future research should advance our understanding of how to assess multidimensional sleep health to understand the relationship between all aspects of sleep health and weight over time.

Comparing survey data to qualitative themes in patient stories to help researchers better identify pressing community healthcare needs.

BACKGROUND: Narrative medicine is a powerful approach for strengthening clinicians' therapeutic alliances with patients and helping them understand others' perspectives by giving patients a voice. MyPaTH Story Booth is a cross-sectional observational study that uses narrative medicine concepts to allow community participants to share their health and healthcare-related experiences through relatively unstructured interviews (i.e., stories). The archive forms a qualitative research 'commons' where researchers can learn about patient and caregiver perspectives and tailor research goals to better address community needs. Brief surveys allow storytellers to classify their stories so that the archive is searchable. METHODS: This study assessed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of self-reported surveys for categorizing 83 stories, compared with a 'gold standard' (most commonly accepted method for interpreting narratives) of qualitative coding. Stories were classified as either having or not having each of 38 different classifications based on US National Library of Medicine (NLM) Health Topics (Type of disorder or condition and Part of the body discussed) or developed with stakeholder input (Type of health/healthcare experience). RESULTS: Survey data assessing 'Part of the body discussed' and 'Type of disorder or condition' typically was highly sensitive (64%-95%) and specific (73%-99%) suggesting high adequacy of surveys in identifying stories. Questions focused on 'Type of health/healthcare experience' showed inconsistent and relatively lower sensitivities (48%-93%) and specificities (30%-79%) suggesting lower adequacy of surveys in identifying stories. CONCLUSION: Survey items based on NLM Health Topics allowed people to categorize their health narratives into relevant, searchable topics making the database more accessible.

Seasonal variation in blood pressure control across US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. METHODS: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. RESULTS: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ±â€Š0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ±â€Š0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ±â€Š2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ±â€Š0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. CONCLUSION: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.

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.

Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet.

Background: The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities. Objectives: The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets. Results: We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research. Conclusions: This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

Identifying barriers to shared decision-making about bariatric surgery in two large health systems.

OBJECTIVE: Prior research suggests shared decision-making (SDM) could improve patient and health care provider communication about bariatric surgery. The aim of this work was to identify and prioritize barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery to help guide implementation of SDM. METHODS: Two large US health care systems formed multidisciplinary teams to facilitate the implementation of SDM around bariatric surgery. The teams used a nominal group process approach involving (1) generation of multilevel barriers, (2) round-robin recording of barriers, (3) facilitated discussion, and (4) selection and ranking of barriers according to importance and feasibility to address. RESULTS: One health system identified 13 barriers and prioritized 5 as the most important and feasible to address. The second health system identified 14 barriers and prioritized 6. Both health systems commonly prioritized six barriers: lack of insurance coverage; lack of understanding of insurance coverage; lack of organizational prioritization of SDM; lack of knowledge about bariatric surgery; lack of interdepartmental clarity between primary and specialty care; and limited training on SDM conversations and tools. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems face numerous barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery, and these can be easily identified and prioritized by multistakeholder teams. Future research should seek to identify effective strategies to address these common barriers.

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.

Association of Eating and Sleeping Intervals With Weight Change Over Time: The Daily24 Cohort.

Background We aim to evaluate the association between meal intervals and weight trajectory among adults from a clinical cohort. Methods and Results This is a multisite prospective cohort study of adults recruited from 3 health systems. Over the 6-month study period, 547 participants downloaded and used a mobile application to record the timing of meals and sleep for at least 1 day. We obtained information on weight and comorbidities at each outpatient visit from electronic health records for up to 10 years before until 10 months after baseline. We used mixed linear regression to model weight trajectories. Mean age was 51.1 (SD 15.0) years, and body mass index was 30.8 (SD 7.8) kg/m2; 77.9% were women, and 77.5% reported White race. Mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 (2.3) hours and was not associated with weight change. The number of meals per day was positively associated with weight change. The average difference in annual weight change (95% CI) associated with an increase of 1 daily meal was 0.28 kg (0.02-0.53). Conclusions Number of daily meals was positively associated with weight change over 6 years. Our findings did not support the use of time-restricted eating as a strategy for long-term weight loss in a general medical population.

Impact of electronic health record-coaching features in weight change: A secondary analysis from the MAINTAIN-pc randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether coaching features were successfully transmitted via electronic health record (EHR) communication and to evaluate their relationship with weight change in a previously tested EHR-based coaching intervention. METHODS: A secondary analysis from the Maintaining Activity and Nutrition through Technology-Assisted Innovation in Primary Care (MAINTAIN-pc) study randomized clinical trial was conducted in nine primary care practices and one specialty practice (endocrinology) affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Eligibility included age 18 to 75 years, intentional 5% weight loss in the previous 2 years, access to an internet-connected computer, and receipt of care from a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center primary care provider. Survey data were collected during the randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Participants content with intervention delivery via the EHR and those who felt a strong connection to their coach had significantly less weight regain (p = 0.013 and p < 0.01, respectively). Participants who had needs unmet by the intervention (e.g., "in-person" support in a group setting or individual settings) regained more weight (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest heterogeneity in the patient population regarding preference for in-person versus EHR-based coaching formats. Such heterogeneity might result in the differential success of EHR-based interventions.

Preoperative Depression Status and 5 Year Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Outcomes in the PCORnet Bariatric Study Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether depression status before metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) influenced 5-year weight loss, diabetes, and safety/utilization outcomes in the PCORnet Bariatric Study. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Research on the impact of depression on MBS outcomes is inconsistent with few large, long-term studies. METHODS: Data were extracted from 23 health systems on 36,871 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG; n=16,158) or gastric bypass (RYGB; n=20,713) from 2005-2015. Patients with and without a depression diagnosis in the year before MBS were evaluated for % total weight loss (%TWL), diabetes outcomes, and postsurgical safety/utilization (reoperations, revisions, endoscopy, hospitalizations, mortality) at 1, 3, and 5 years after MBS. RESULTS: 27.1% of SG and 33.0% of RYGB patients had preoperative depression, and they had more medical and psychiatric comorbidities than those without depression. At 5 years of follow-up, those with depression, versus those without depression, had slightly less %TWL after RYGB, but not after SG (between group difference = 0.42%TWL, P = 0.04). However, patients with depression had slightly larger HbA1c improvements after RYGB but not after SG (between group difference = - 0.19, P = 0.04). Baseline depression did not moderate diabetes remission or relapse, reoperations, revision, or mortality across operations; however, baseline depression did moderate the risk of endoscopy and repeat hospitalization across RYGB versus SG. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with depression undergoing RYGB and SG had similar weight loss, diabetes, and safety/utilization outcomes to those without depression. The effects of depression were clinically small compared to the choice of operation.

The ACTIV-6 Stakeholder Advisory Committee: a model for virtual engagement in decentralized clinical trials.

Introduction: Engaging patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders to help guide the research process is a cornerstone of patient-centered research. Lived expertise may help ensure the relevance of research questions, promote practices that are satisfactory to research participants, improve transparency, and assist with disseminating findings. Methods: Traditionally engagement has been conducted face-to-face in the local communities in which research operates. Decentralized platform trials pose new challenges for the practice of engagement. We used a remote model for stakeholder engagement, relying on Zoom meetings and blog communications. Results: Here we describe the approach used for research partnership with patients, caregivers, and clinicians in the planning and oversight of the ACTIV-6 trial and the impact of this work. We also present suggestions for future remote engagement. Conclusions: The ACTIV-6 experience may inform proposed strategies for future engagement in decentralized trials.

Effect of Ivermectin 600 µg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin, dosed at 600 µg/kg, daily for 6 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants age ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days, were enrolled from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Participants were randomized to ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n=602), daily vs. placebo daily (n=604) for 6 days. 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, median (interquartile range) age was 48 (38-58) years; 713 (59%) were women; and 1008 (84%) reported ≥2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Median time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [CrI], posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (0.92-1.13; P[HR>1]=0.68). In those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (HR 1.0, 0.6- 1.5; P[HR<1]=0.53). 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: 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 recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 .

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

Importance: The effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 µg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 µg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774). Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28. Results: Among 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.