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.

Postoperative Outcomes After Staged Versus Coordinated Breast Surgery and Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare postoperative complication rates and healthcare charges between patients who underwent coordinated versus staged breast surgery and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The MarketScan administrative database was used to identify adult female patients with invasive breast cancer or BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations who underwent BSO and breast surgery (lumpectomy or mastectomy with or without reconstruction) between 2010 and 2015. Patients were assigned to the coordinated group if a breast operation and BSO were performed simultaneously or assigned to the staged group if BSO was performed separately. Primary outcomes were (1) incidence of 90-day postoperative complications and (2) 2-year aggregate perioperative healthcare charges. Fisher's exact tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 4228 patients who underwent breast surgery and BSO, 412 (9.7%) were in the coordinated group and 3816 (90.3%) were in the staged group. The coordinated group had a higher incidence of postoperative complications (24.0% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.01), higher risk-adjusted odds of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.76, p = 0.02], and similar aggregate healthcare charges before (median charges: $106,500 vs. $101,555, p = 0.96) and after risk-adjustment [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.93-1.07; p = 0.95]. In a subgroup analysis, incidence of postoperative complications (12.9% for coordinated operations vs. 11.7% for staged operation, p = 0.73) was similar in patients whose breast operation was a lumpectomy. CONCLUSIONS: While costs were similar, coordinating breast surgery with BSO was associated with more complications in patients who underwent mastectomy, but not in patients who underwent lumpectomy. These data should inform shared decision-making in high-risk patients.

De-implementation of Axillary Dissection in Women Undergoing Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) was standard treatment for breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) until 2011, when data from the Z11 and AMAROS trials challenged its survival benefit in early stage breast cancer. We assessed the contribution of patient, tumor, and facility factors on cALND use in patients undergoing mastectomy and SLN biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients diagnosed from 2012 to 2017 who underwent upfront mastectomy and SLN biopsy with at least one positive SLN were included. A multivariable mixed effects logistic regression model was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and facility variables on cALND use. Reference effect measures (REM) were used to compare the contribution of general contextual effects (GCE) to variation in cALND use. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2017, the overall use of cALND decreased from 81.3% to 68.0%. Overall, younger patients, larger tumors, higher grade tumors, and tumors with lymphovascular invasion were more likely to undergo cALND. Facility variables, including higher surgical volume and facility location in the Midwest, were associated with increased use of cALND. However, REM results showed that the contribution of GCE to the variation in cALND use exceeded that of the measured patient, tumor, facility, and time variables. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in cALND use during the study period. However, cALND was frequently performed in women after mastectomy found to have a positive SLN. There is high variability in cALND use, mainly driven by interfacility practice variation rather than specific high-risk patient and/or tumor characteristics.

Unmeasured factors are associated with the use of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Completion lymph node dissection (CLND) was the standard treatment for patients with melanoma with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) until 2017 when data from the DeCOG-SLT and MLST-2 randomized trials challenged the survival benefit of this procedure. We assessed the contribution of patient, tumor and facility factors on the use of CLND in patients with surgically resected Stage III melanoma. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients who underwent surgical excision and were found to have a positive SLN from 2012 to 2017 were included. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model with a random intercept for the facility was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and facility variables on the risk of CLND. Reference effect measures (REMs) were used to compare the contribution of contextual effects (unknown facility variables) versus measured variables on the variation in CLND use. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2017, the overall use of CLND decreased from 59.9% to 26.5% (p < 0.0001). Overall, older patients and patients with government-based insurance were less likely to undergo CLND. Tumor factors associated with a decreased rate of CLND included primary tumor location on the lower limb, decreasing depth, and mitotic rate <1. However, the contribution of contextual effects to the variation in CLND use exceeded that of the measured facility, tumor, time, and patient variables. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in CLND use during the study period. However, there is still high variability in CLND use, mainly driven by unmeasured contextual effects.

Real-World Evidence of the Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Sotrovimab for Preventing Hospitalization and Mortality in COVID-19 Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether sotrovimab, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment authorized for early symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, is also effective in preventing the progression of severe disease and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta variant infection. METHODS: In an observational cohort study of nonhospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1 October 2021-11 December 2021, using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data, we used propensity matching to select 3 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received outpatient sotrovimab treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and severity of hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 10 036 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 522 receiving sotrovimab were matched to 1563 not receiving mAbs. Compared to mAb-untreated patients, sotrovimab treatment was associated with a 63% decrease in the odds of all-cause hospitalization (raw rate 2.1% vs 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], .19-.66) and an 89% decrease in the odds of all-cause 28-day mortality (raw rate 0% vs 1.0%; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, .0-.79), and may reduce respiratory disease severity among those hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence demonstrated sotrovimab effectiveness in reducing hospitalization and all-cause 28-day mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Delta variant phase.

De-implementation of Axillary Dissection in Women With Breast Cancer is Largely Driven By Site-level Contextual Effects.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the contribution of unknown institutional factors (contextual effects) in the de-implementation of cALND in women with breast cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Women included in the National Cancer Database with invasive breast carcinoma from 2012 to 2016 that underwent upfront lumpectomy and were found to have a positive sentinel node. METHODS: A multivariable mixed effects logistic regression model with a random intercept for site was used to determine the effect of patient, tumor, and institutional variables on the risk of cALND. Reference effect measureswere used to describe and compare the contribution of contextual effects to the variation in cALND use to that of measured variables. RESULTS: By 2016, cALND was still performed in at least 50% of the patients in a quarter of the institutions. Black race, younger women and those with larger or hormone negative tumors were more likely to undergo cALND. However, the width of the 90% reference effect measures range for the contextual effects exceeded that of the measured site, tumor, time, and patient demographics, suggesting institutional contextual effects were the major drivers of cALND de-implementation. For instance, a woman at an institution with low-risk of performing cALND would have 74% reduced odds of havinga cALND than if she was treated at a median-risk institution, while a patient at a high-risk institution had 3.91 times the odds. CONCLUSION: Compared to known patient, tumor, and institutional factors, contextual effects had a higher contribution to the variation in cALND use.

Clinician Perspectives on Monoclonal Antibody Treatment for High-Risk Outpatients with COVID-19: Implications for Implementation and Equitable Access.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to identify and address factors influencing uptake and equitable access to monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for high-risk outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician knowledge, beliefs, and experiences regarding obtaining mAb treatment for eligible patients. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey of clinicians (N = 374) practicing in the state of Colorado who care for patients with COVID-19 in primary care, emergency medicine, and other clinical settings. MAIN MEASURE(S): Diffusion of innovation theory concepts including knowledge, perceived strength of evidence, barriers, and experience with, ease of use, preparedness, and feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of mAb referral systems and processes. KEY RESULTS: Most respondents indicated little to no knowledge about mAb therapies for COVID-19 (67%, 74%, 77%, for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab+etesivimab, and casirivimab+imdevimab, respectively). About half reported little to no familiarity with eligibility criteria (50.9%) and did not know the strength of evidence (31%, 43%, 52%, for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab+etesivimab, and casirivimab+imdevimab, respectively). Lack of knowledge or confidence in treatment was a top barrier to mAbs use; other barriers included complicated referral processes, patients not eligible when seen, and out-of-pocket costs concerns. Respondents rated four mAb referral steps as generally acceptable, appropriate, and feasible to complete in their primary outpatient clinical setting. Only 24% indicated their clinical setting was very prepared to facilitate referrals, 40% had ever referred a patient for mAbs, and 43% intended to refer a patient in the next month. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician education on strength of evidence and eligibility criteria for mAbs is needed. However, education alone is not sufficient. Given the urgent need to rapidly scale up access to treatment and reduce hospitalizations and death from COVID-19, more efficient, equitable systems and processes for referral and delivery of care, such as those coordinated by health systems, public health departments, or disaster management services, are warranted.

Association between treatment failure and hospitalization after receipt of neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality among early symptomatic COVID-19 patients in clinical trials and real-world data. While resistance to some mAbs has since emerged among new variants, characteristics associated with treatment failure of mAbs remain unknown. METHODS: This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with COVID-19 who received mAb treatment between November 20, 2020, and December 9, 2021. We utilized electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. The primary outcome was mAb treatment failure, defined as hospitalization or death within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: COVID-19 mAb was administered to 7406 patients. Hospitalization within 28 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test occurred in 258 (3.5%) of all patients who received mAb treatment. Ten patients (0.1%) died within 28 days, and all but one were hospitalized prior to death. Characteristics associated with treatment failure included having two or more comorbidities excluding obesity and immunocompromised status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.52-5.56), lack of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.01-3.77), non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.20-3.82), obesity (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.36-2.34), one comorbidity (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11-2.57), age ≥ 65 years (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13-2.35), and male sex (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.02). Immunocompromised status (none, mild, or moderate/severe), pandemic phase, and type of mAb received were not associated with treatment failure (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities, lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, obesity, age ≥ 65 years, and male sex are associated with treatment failure of mAbs.

Demographic factors as determinant of selection of sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass for surgical weight loss.

INTRODUCTION: Use of sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for weight loss has grown exponentially; however, clear indications for SG versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RNYGB) are lacking. Certain populations may be more likely to undergo SG due to its simpler technique and without clear clinical indications. We aim to examine underlying predictors of patients undergoing SG vs RNY across a single state. METHODS: We queried the Colorado All Payers Claim Database for patients undergoing laparoscopic SG or RNY. Patient-level variables included patient demographics, comorbidities, distance traveled for surgery, and distressed communities index (DCI), a zip code-based measure of socioeconomic status. Hospital-level variables included annual bariatric surgery volume, academic status, and whether hospitals were a bariatric Center of Excellence. We performed mixed-effects logistic regression adjusting for demographics, insurance coverage, and comorbidities to compare odds of undergoing SG vs RNY, with a random effect for hospital. RESULTS: 5,017 patients were included with 3,042 (60.6%) undergoing SG and 1,975 (39.4%) undergoing RNY. On multivariable analysis, patients with a high DCI were not more likely to undergo a SG (OR 1.18, CI 0.89-1.55, p = 0.25). However, patients who underwent surgery at hospitals serving the greatest proportion of those from highly distressed communities were significantly more likely to undergo SG (OR 4.22, CI 1.38-12.96, p = 0.01). Patients managed at Bariatric Centers of Excellence were less likely to undergo SG (OR 0.22, CI 0.07-0.62, p = 0.005). Patients with higher BMI, diabetes, or GERD were all more likely to undergo RNY. CONCLUSION: While patients with high DCI were more likely to undergo SG on univariate analysis, these associations disappeared after addition of a hospital-level random effect, suggesting that disparities may be due access to surgeons or systems with preference for one procedure. However, hospitals serving a higher proportion of high-DCI patients are more likely to utilize SG.

Body Mass Index and Levonorgestrel Device Expulsion in Adolescents and Young Adults.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between body mass and levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) expulsion in adolescents and young adults (AYA). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS & INTERVENTIONS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of nulliparous females aged 10-24 years who had a 52-milligram LNG-IUD placed between November 2017 and May 2021 by pediatric and adolescent gynecology providers at a tertiary children's hospital, including those who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). Primary analysis focused on 10-19 year olds as they had comparable anthropometrics (namely BMI percentile [BMIP] as defined by the Centers for Disease Control). Descriptive statistics included means, standard deviations (SD), and ranges for continuous variables counts and percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess associations. Logistic regressions were fit to test the associations between BMIP, MBS, and the odds of expulsion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES & RESULTS: A total of 588 patients were included in the primary analysis (10-19 years). Mean age was 15.8 years (±2.0). Using BMIP, 15.5% (n = 91) of the sample was overweight and 22.3% (n = 131) were obese. Within 12 months, 33 patients (5.6%) experienced expulsion. Every one-unit increase in BMIP was associated with a 3% increase in the odds of expulsion (P = .008), and each increase in BMIP category (eg, overweight vs average/underweight) was significantly associated with increased odds of expulsion (OR = 2.77-4.28). Patients who had LNG-IUD placement during MBS (n = 43) had higher odds of expulsion (OR = 3.23; P = .024) than other patients. CONCLUSION: AYA with higher BMIP and/or who undergo MBS are at increased risk of LNG-IUD expulsion within one year of placement.

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.

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.

Pathological Complete Response in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma After Preoperative Chemotherapy.

Importance: Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy is increasingly used in patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma, leading to pathological complete response (pCR) in a small subset of patients. However, multicenter studies with in-depth data about pCR are lacking. Objective: To investigate the incidence, outcome, and risk factors of pCR after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational, international, multicenter cohort study assessed all consecutive patients with pathology-proven localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent resection after 2 or more cycles of chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) in 19 centers from 8 countries (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018). Data collection was performed from February 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022, and analyses from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Median follow-up was 19 months. Exposures: Preoperative chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy) followed by resection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of pCR (defined as absence of vital tumor cells in the sampled pancreas specimen after resection), its association with OS from surgery, and factors associated with pCR. Factors associated with overall survival (OS) and pCR were investigated with Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively. Results: Overall, 1758 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [9] years; 879 [50.0%] male) were studied. The rate of pCR was 4.8% (n = 85), and pCR was associated with OS (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.83). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 95%, 82%, and 63% in patients with pCR vs 80%, 46%, and 30% in patients without pCR, respectively (P < .001). Factors associated with pCR included preoperative multiagent chemotherapy other than (m)FOLFIRINOX ([modified] leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.87), preoperative conventional radiotherapy (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.00-4.10), preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy (OR, 8.91; 95% CI, 4.17-19.05), radiologic response (OR, 13.00; 95% CI, 7.02-24.08), and normal(ized) serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 after preoperative therapy (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.79-7.89). Conclusions and Relevance: This international, retrospective cohort study found that pCR occurred in 4.8% of patients with resected localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemo(radio)therapy. Although pCR does not reflect cure, it is associated with improved OS, with a doubled 5-year OS of 63% compared with 30% in patients without pCR. Factors associated with pCR related to preoperative chemo(radio)therapy regimens and anatomical and biological disease response features may have implications for treatment strategies that require validation in prospective studies because they may not universally apply to all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

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.

Quality and Safety Practices Among Academic Obstetrics and Gynecology Departments.

The objective was to quantify resources devoted to quality and patient safety initiatives, to document the development and use of key performance indicator reports regarding patient outcomes and patient feedback, and to assess the culture of safety within academic obstetrics and gynecology departments. Chairs of academic obstetrics and gynecology departments were asked to complete a quality and safety assessment survey. Surveys were distributed to 138 departments, yielding 52 completed responses (37.7%). Five percent of departments reported including a patient representative on a quality committee. Most committee leaders (60.5%) and members (67.4%) received no compensation. Formal training was required in 28.8% of responding departments. Most departments monitored key performance metrics for inpatient outcomes (95.9%). Leaders scored their departments' culture of safety highly. Most departments provided no protected time to faculty devoted to quality efforts, generation of key performance indicators for inpatient activities was prevalent and integrating patient and community input remain unrealized opportunities.

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.

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 the 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 and 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. The secondary outcomes were 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, 28-day all-cause mortality, 28-day emergency department visits, maximum respiratory support level, intensive care unit 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, 3739 bebtelovimab-treated patients were matched to 5423 untreated patients. Compared with no treatment, bebtelovimab was associated with lower odds of 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs 2.1%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.74, P <0.001), as well as COVID-19-related hospitalization (1.0% vs 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.44 [95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.64], P <0.001). Bebtelovimab appeared to be more beneficial in lowering the odds of hospitalization among patients with two or more comorbidities (interaction P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant phase, bebtelovimab was associated with lower hospitalization.

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.