A telemedicine bridge clinic improves access and reduces cost for opioid use disorder care.

Objective: We evaluated the impact of a telemedicine bridge clinic on treatment outcomes and cost for patients with opioid use disorder. Telemedicine bridge clinics deliver low-barrier rapid assessment of patients with opioid use disorder via audio-only and audiovisual telemedicine to facilitate induction on medication therapy and connection to ongoing care. Methods: A pre-post analysis of UPMC Health Plan member claims was performed to evaluate the impact of this intervention on the trajectory of care for patients with continuous coverage before and after bridge clinic visit(s). Results: Analysis included 150 UPMC Health Plan members evaluated at the bridge clinic between April 2020 and October 2021. At least one buprenorphine prescription was filled within 30 days by 91% of patients; median proportion of days covered by buprenorphine was 73.3%, 54.4%, and 50.6% at 30, 90, and 180 days after an initial visit compared to median of no buprenorphine claims 30 days prior among the same patients. Patients had an 18% decline in unplanned care utilization 30 days after initial Bridge Clinic visit, with a 62% reduction in unplanned care cost per member per month (PMPM), 38% reduction in medical cost PMPM, and 10% reduction in total PMPM (medical + pharmacy cost) at 180 days. Primary care, outpatient behavioral health, and laboratory costs increased while emergency department, urgent care, and inpatient costs declined. Conclusion: Utilization of a telemedicine bridge clinic was associated with buprenorphine initiation, linkage to ongoing care with retention including medication treatment, reduced unplanned care cost, and overall savings.

Identification of a hyperinflammatory sepsis phenotype using protein biomarker and clinical data in the ProCESS randomized trial.

Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome and phenotypes have been proposed using clinical data. Less is known about the contribution of protein biomarkers to clinical sepsis phenotypes and their importance for treatment effects in randomized trials of resuscitation. The objective is to use both clinical and biomarker data in the Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) randomized trial to determine sepsis phenotypes and to test for heterogeneity of treatment effect by phenotype comparing usual care to protocolized early, goal-directed therapy(EGDT). In this secondary analysis of a subset of patients with biomarker sampling in the ProCESS trial (n = 543), we identified sepsis phenotypes prior to randomization using latent class analysis of 20 clinical and biomarker variables. Logistic regression was used to test for interaction between phenotype and treatment arm for 60-day inpatient mortality. Among 543 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in the ProCESS trial, a 2-class model best fit the data (p = 0.01). Phenotype 1 (n = 66, 12%) had increased IL-6, ICAM, and total bilirubin and decreased platelets compared to phenotype 2 (n = 477, 88%, p < 0.01 for all). Phenotype 1 had greater 60-day inpatient mortality compared to Phenotype 2 (41% vs 16%; p < 0.01). Treatment with EGDT was associated with worse 60-day inpatient mortality compared to usual care (58% vs. 23%) in Phenotype 1 only (p-value for interaction = 0.05). The 60-day inpatient mortality was similar comparing EGDT to usual care in Phenotype 2 (16% vs. 17%). We identified 2 sepsis phenotypes using latent class analysis of clinical and protein biomarker data at randomization in the ProCESS trial. Phenotype 1 had increased inflammation, organ dysfunction and worse clinical outcomes compared to phenotype 2. Response to EGDT versus usual care differed by phenotype.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines and U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 changed frequently as different SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early outpatient treatment with mAbs, overall and by mAb product, presumed SARS-CoV-2 variant, and immunocompromised status, is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days. DESIGN: Hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial from observational data comparing mAb-treated patients with a propensity score-matched, nontreated control group. SETTING: Large U.S. health care system. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk outpatients eligible for mAb treatment under any EUA with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result from 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. INTERVENTION: Single-dose intravenous mAb treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, sotrovimab, bebtelovimab, or intravenous or subcutaneous casirivimab-imdevimab administered within 2 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days among treated patients versus a nontreated control group (no treatment or treatment ≥3 days after SARS-CoV-2 test date). RESULTS: The risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days was 4.6% in 2571 treated patients and 7.6% in 5135 nontreated control patients (risk ratio [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74]). In sensitivity analyses, the corresponding RRs for 1- and 3-day treatment grace periods were 0.59 and 0.49, respectively. In subgroup analyses, those receiving mAbs when the Alpha and Delta variants were presumed to be predominant had estimated RRs of 0.55 and 0.53, respectively, compared with 0.71 for the Omicron variant period. Relative risk estimates for individual mAb products all suggested lower risk for hospitalization or death. Among immunocompromised patients, the RR was 0.45 (CI, 0.28 to 0.71). LIMITATIONS: Observational study design, SARS-CoV-2 variant presumed by date rather than genotyping, no data on symptom severity, and partial data on vaccination status. CONCLUSION: Early mAb treatment among outpatients with COVID-19 is associated with lower risk for hospitalization or death for various mAb products and SARS-CoV-2 variants. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Reply to Letter: Merigo et al., "De trop" meta-analyses and systematic reviews in cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A way to rapidly improve authors' citation index at a price of real science.

Merigo and colleagues argue that the meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in scientific journals in recent years is excessive, and that the primary goal is often more author-centric rather than to advance science. We agree that author benefits are not trivial, but some are foundational and important, especially for trainees. Trainees learn how to judge the quality of published evidence and create a comprehensive understanding in a selected topic, allowing for skill acquisition and a strong base for later work. This can stoke a future career and better insights by many, starting with the people who create these pieces.

Efficacy of a digital mental health intervention embedded in routine care compared with treatment as usual in adolescents and young adults with moderate depressive symptoms: protocol for randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: There are unmet mental health needs of depressed adolescents and young adults (AYAs) across the USA. Behavioural technology adequately integrated into clinical care delivery has potential to improve care access and efficiency. This multisite randomised controlled trial evaluates how a coach-enhanced digital cognitive behavioural intervention (dCBI) enhances usual care for depressed AYAs in paediatric practices with minority enriched samples. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants (n=750) ages 16-22 who meet threshold criteria for depressive severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9 score 10-24) will be recruited through paediatric practices across three academic institutions (Boston, Pittsburgh and San Diego). Participants will be randomised to 12 weeks of dCBI+treatment as usual (TAU) (n=450) or TAU alone (n=300) in outpatient paediatric practices. Assessments will be completed at baseline, 6 weeks and 12 weeks with the primary outcome being improvement in clinician-rated and self-reported depressive severity (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised and PHQ-9) and secondary outcomes being self-reported suicidal ideation (item 9 on PHQ-9), anxiety severity (Generalised Anxiety Disorder), general quality of life (Satisfaction with Life Scale) and general functioning (Children's Global Assessment Scale). The study design is an intent-to-treat mixed effects regression with group, and covariates nested within the sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants or their parent/guardian (under 18 years or unemancipated) will give informed consent to a study team member. All data are expected to be collected over 18 months. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a board at each institution in the United States that reviews and monitors research involving human subjects. IRB approval from the University of Pittsburgh was obtained on 30 November 2021 (STUDY21080150), from the University of California San Diego's Human Research Protection Program IRB on 14 July 2022 (802047), and from the Boston Children's Hospital IRB on 25 October 2022 (P00040987). Full study results are planned to be published within 2 years of initial study recruitment (October 2024). Dissemination of findings will occur in peer-reviewed journals, professional conferences and through reports to participating entities and stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05159713; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Home oxygen therapy from the emergency department for COVID-19 an observational study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prescribing supplemental oxygen was a common reason for hospitalization of patients. We evaluated outcomes of COVID-19 patients discharged from the Emergency Department (ED) with home oxygen as part of a program to decrease hospital admissions. METHODS: We retrospectively observed COVID-19 patients with an ED visit resulting in direct discharge or observation from April 2020 to January 2022 at 14 hospitals in a single healthcare system. The cohort included those discharged with new oxygen supplementation, a pulse oximeter, and return instructions. Our primary outcome was subsequent hospitalization or death outside the hospital within 30 days of ED or observation discharge. RESULTS: Among 28,960 patients visiting the ED for COVID-19, providers admitted 11,508 (39.7%) to the hospital, placed 907 (3.1%) in observation status, and discharged 16,545 (57.1%) to home. A total of 614 COVID-19 patients (535 discharge to home and 97 observation unit) went home on new oxygen therapy. We observed the primary outcome in 151 (24.6%, CI 21.3-28.1%) patients. There were 148 (24.1%) patients subsequently hospitalized and 3 (0.5%) patients who died outside the hospital. The subsequent hospitalized mortality rate was 29.7% with 44 of the 148 patients admitted to the hospital dying. Mortality all cause at 30 days in the entire cohort was 7.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients discharged to home with new oxygen for COVID-19 safely avoid later hospitalization and few patients die within 30 days. This suggests the feasibility of the approach and offers support for ongoing research and implementation efforts.

Impact of adherence to procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline recommendations for low procalcitonin levels on antibiotic use.

BACKGROUND: The Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT) found provision of a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline to hospital-based clinicians did not reduce antibiotic use. Possible reasons include clinician reluctance to follow the guideline, with an observed 64.8% adherence rate. In this study we sought to determine the threshold adherence rate for reduction in antibiotic use, and to explore opportunities to increase adherence. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of ProACT data. ProACT randomized 1656 patients presenting to 14 U.S. hospitals with suspected lower respiratory tract infection to usual care or provision of procalcitonin assay results and an antibiotic prescribing guideline to the treating clinicians. We simulated varying adherence to guideline recommendations for low procalcitonin levels and determined which threshold adherence rate could have resulted in rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups at alpha = 0.05. We also performed sensitivity analyses within specific clinical settings and grouped patients initially prescribed antibiotics despite low procalcitonin into low, medium, and high risk of illness severity or bacterial infection. RESULTS: Our primary outcome was number of antibiotic-days by day 30 using an intention-to-treat approach and a null hypothesis of no difference in antibiotic use. We determined that an 84% adherence rate in the hospital setting (emergency department and inpatient) for low procalcitonin could have allowed rejection of the null hypothesis (3.7 vs 4.3 antibiotic-days, p = 0.048). The threshold adherence rate was 76% for continued guideline adherence after discharge. Even 100% adherence in the emergency department alone failed to reduce antibiotic-days. Of the 218 patients prescribed antibiotics in the emergency department despite low procalcitonin, 153 (70.2%) were categorized as low or medium risk. CONCLUSIONS: High adherence in the hospital setting to a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline is necessary to reduce antibiotic use in suspected lower respiratory tract infection. Continued guideline adherence after discharge and withholding of antibiotics in low and medium risk patients with low procalcitonin may offer impactful potential opportunities for antibiotic reduction. Trial registration Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT), ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02130986. First posted May 6, 2014.

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.).

Evaluation of Bebtelovimab for Treatment of Covid-19 During the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Era.

Background: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment is associated with decreased risk of hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. Bebtelovimab exhibits in vitro activity against the Omicron variant and its sublineages; however, clinical data are lacking. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing bebtelovimab-treated patients with propensity score-adjusted and matched nontreated control groups. Participants included high-risk outpatients eligible for bebtelovimab treatment under Emergency Use Authorization with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test from March 30 to May 28, 2022. Treated patients received single-dose intravenous treatment with bebtelovimab. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death over 28 days. Results: Before matching/statistical adjustment, mAb-treated patients were, on average, 10 years older than nontreated patients (61.6 vs 51.3 years) and had higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, cancer, organ or cell transplant, and immunocompromised status (standardized mean differences ≥0.20). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of hospitalization or death comparing 1006 treated with 2023 nontreated patients was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.80). Among 930 treated and 930 propensity score-matched nontreated patients, the incidence of hospitalization or death was 3.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86). The lower odds ratio of hospitalization or death associated with bebtelovimab treatment was most evident in older patients, those with immunocompromised status, and fully vaccinated patients. Conclusions: Monoclonal antibody treatment with bebtelovimab among COVID-19 outpatients is associated with lower odds of hospitalization or death, particularly among immunocompromised and older patients.

Outcomes of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute K12 program in emergency care research: 7-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up for clinician-scientist training programs is sparse. We describe the outcomes of clinician-scientist scholars in the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) K12 program in emergency care research up to 8.7 years after matriculation in the program. METHODS: This was a cohort study of faculty clinician-scientist scholars enrolled in a NHLBI K12 research training program at 6 sites across the US, with median follow-up 7.7 years (range 5.7-8.7 years) from the date of matriculation. Scholars completed electronic surveys in 2017 and 2019, with the 2019 survey collecting information for their current work setting, percent time for research, and grant funding from all sources. We used NIH RePorter and online resources to verify federal grants through March 2021. The primary outcome was a funded career development award (CDA) or research project grant (RPG) where the scholar was principal investigator. We included funding from all federal sources and national foundations. RESULTS: There were 43 scholars, including 16 (37%) women. Over the follow-up period, 32 (74%) received an individual CDA or RPG, with a median of 36 months (range 9-83 months) after entering the program. Of the 43 scholars, 23 (54%) received a CDA and 22 (51%) received an RPG, 7 (16%) of which were R01s. Of the 23 scholars who received a CDA, 13 (56%) subsequently had an RPG funded. Time to CDA or RPG did not differ by sex (women vs. men log-rank test p = 0.27) or specialty training (emergency medicine versus other specialties, p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: After 7 years of follow-up for this NHLBI K12 emergency care research training program, three quarters of clinician-scientist scholars had obtained CDA or RPG funding, with no notable differences by sex or clinical training.

A learning health system approach to the COVID-19 pandemic: System-wide changes in clinical practice and 30-day mortality among hospitalized patients.

Introduction: Rapid, continuous implementation of credible scientific findings and regulatory approvals is often slow in large, diverse health systems. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a new threat to this common "slow to learn and adapt" model in healthcare. We describe how the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) committed to a rapid learning health system (LHS) model to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A treatment cohort study was conducted among 11 429 hospitalized patients (pediatric/adult) from 22 hospitals (PA, NY) with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (March 19, 2020 - June 6, 2021). Sociodemographic and clinical data were captured from UPMC electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Patients were grouped into four time-defined patient "waves" based on nadir of daily hospital admissions, with wave 3 (September 20, 2020 - March 10, 2021) split at its zenith due to high volume with steep acceleration and deceleration. Outcomes included changes in clinical practice (eg, use of corticosteroids, antivirals, and other therapies) in relation to timing of internal system analyses, scientific publications, and regulatory approvals, along with 30-day rate of mortality over time. Results: The mean (SD) daily number of admissions across hospitals was 26 (29) with a maximum 7-day moving average of 107 patients. System-wide implementation of the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab occurred within days of release of corresponding seminal publications and regulatory actions. After adjustment for differences in patient clinical profiles over time, each month of hospital admission was associated with an estimated 5% lower odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.97, P < .001). Conclusions: In our large LHS, near real-time changes in clinical management of COVID-19 patients happened promptly as scientific publications and regulatory approvals occurred throughout the pandemic. Alongside these changes, patients with COVID-19 experienced lower adjusted 30-day mortality following hospital admission over time.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria. Exposure: For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound. Results: A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

Comparison of the prognostic performance of the CURB-65 and a modified version of the pneumonia severity index designed to identify high-risk patients using the International Community-Acquired Pneumonia Collaboration Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although the PSI and CURB-65 represent well-validated prediction rules for pneumonia prognosis, PSI was designed to identify patients at low risk and CURB- 65 patients at high risk of mortality. We compared the prognostic performance of a modified version of the PSI designed to identify high-risk patients (i.e., PSI-HR) to CURB-65 in predicting short-term mortality. METHODS: Using data from 6 pneumonia cohorts, we designed PSI-HR as a 6-class prediction rule using the original prognostic weights of all PSI variables and modifying the risk score thresholds to define risk classes. We calculated the proportion of low-risk and high-risk patients using CURB-65 and PSI-HR and 30-day mortality in these subgroups. We compared the rules' sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for mortality at all risk class thresholds and assessed discriminatory power using areas under their receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: Among 13,874 patients with pneumonia, 1,036 (7.5%) died. For PSI-HR versus CURB-65, aggregate mortality was lower in low-risk patients (1.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.005) and higher in high-risk patients (36.5% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.27). PSI-HR had higher sensitivities than CURB-65 at all thresholds; PSI-HR also had higher specificities at the 3 lowest thresholds and specificities within 0.5% points of CURB-65 at the 2 highest thresholds. The AUROC was larger for PSI-HR than CURB- 65 (0.82 vs. 0.77, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PSI-HR demonstrated superior prognostic accuracy to CURB-65 at the lower end of the severity spectrum and identified high-risk patients with nonsignificant higher short-term mortality at the higher end.

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab. METHODS: A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound. FINDINGS: Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.