A Machine Learning Method for Allocating Scarce COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibodies.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the effective distribution of limited treatments became a crucial policy goal. Yet, limited research exists using electronic health record data and machine learning techniques, such as policy learning trees (PLTs), to optimize the distribution of scarce therapeutics. Objective: To evaluate whether a machine learning PLT-based method of scarce resource allocation optimizes the treatment benefit of COVID-19 neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) during periods of resource constraint. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from October 1, 2021, to December 11, 2021, for the training cohort and data from June 1, 2021, to October 1, 2021, for the testing cohort. The cohorts included patients who had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 and qualified for COVID-19 mAb therapy based on the US Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization criteria, ascertained from the patient electronic health record. Only some of the qualifying candidates received treatment with mAbs. Data were analyzed between from January 2023 to May 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall expected hospitalization, assessed as the potential reduction in overall expected hospitalization if the PLT-based allocation system was used. This was compared to observed allocation using risk differences. Results: Among 9542 eligible patients in the training cohort (5418 female [56.8%]; age distribution: 18-44 years, 4151 [43.5%]; 45-64 years, 3146 [33.0%]; and ≥65 years, 2245 [23.5%]), a total of 3862 (40.5%) received mAbs. Among 6248 eligible patients in the testing cohort (3416 female [54.7%]; age distribution: 18-44 years, 2827 [45.2%]; 45-64 years, 1927 [30.8%]; and ≥65 years, 1494 [23.9%]), a total of 1329 (21.3%) received mAbs. Treatment allocation using the trained PLT model led to an estimated 1.6% reduction (95% CI, -2.0% to -1.2%) in overall expected hospitalization compared to observed treatment allocation in the testing cohort. The visual assessment showed that the PLT-based point system had a larger reduction in 28-day hospitalization compared with the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score (maximum overall hospitalization difference, -1.0% [95% CI, -1.3% to -0.7%]) in the testing cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study proposes and tests a PLT method, which can be linked to a electronic health record data platform to improve real-time allocation of scarce treatments. Use of this PLT-based allocation method would have likely resulted in fewer hospitalizations across a population than were observed in usual care, with greater expected reductions than a commonly used point system.

Real-world evaluation of early remdesivir in high-risk COVID-19 outpatients during Omicron including BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5.

BACKGROUND: A trial performed among unvaccinated, high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 during the delta period showed remdesivir reduced hospitalization. We used our real-world data platform to determine the effectiveness of remdesivir on reducing 28-day hospitalization among outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19 during an Omicron period including BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. METHODS: We did a propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between April 7, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Electronic healthcare record data from a large health system in Colorado were linked to statewide vaccination and mortality data. We included patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or outpatient remdesivir administration. Exclusion criteria were other SARS-CoV-2 treatments or positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than seven days before remdesivir. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization up to day 28. Secondary outcomes included 28-day COVID-related hospitalization and 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 29,270 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1,252 remdesivir-treated patients were matched to 2,499 untreated patients. Remdesivir was associated with lower 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs. 3.3%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.39 [95% CI 0.23-0.67], p < 0.001) than no treatment. All-cause mortality at 28 days was numerically lower among remdesivir-treated patients (0.1% vs. 0.4%; aOR 0.32 [95% CI 0.03-1.40]). Similar benefit of RDV treatment on 28-day all-cause hospitalization was observed across Omicron periods, aOR (95% CI): BA.2/BA2.12.1 (0.77[0.19-2.41]), BA.4/5 (0.50[95% CI 0.50-1.01]), BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 (0.21[95% CI 0.08-0.57]. CONCLUSION: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 during recent Omicron surges, remdesivir was associated with lower hospitalization than no treatment, supporting current National Institutes of Health Guidelines.

Oaths, Conscience, Contracts, and Laws-The Gathering Storm Confronting Medical Professionalism.

This Viewpoint explains the 3 trends­personal conscience, employment contracts, and laws­that challenge physicians from putting their patients first and offers ways to reverse these barriers.

How Should Critical Medications Be Rationed During Shortages?

When any drug is in short supply, it must be rationed. Recent increases in the frequency of shortages require more rationing by clinicians. Most health systems have policies on managing drug shortages, but transparency of criteria according to which specific scarce medications should be rationed-and by whom-are rare. The COVID-19 pandemic offered several examples of clinical and ethical need to develop and implement clear, fair strategies for distributing medications in short supply. Lessons from the pandemic should inform strategies for managing drug shortages now and in the future.

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.

When People Facing Dementia Choose to Hasten Death: The Landscape of Current Ethical, Legal, Medical, and Social Considerations in the United States.

Some individuals facing dementia contemplate hastening their own death: weighing the possibility of living longer with dementia against the alternative of dying sooner but avoiding the later stages of cognitive and functional impairment. This weighing resonates with an ethical and legal consensus in the United States that individuals can voluntarily choose to forgo life-sustaining interventions and also that medical professionals can support these choices even when they will result in an earlier death. For these reasons, whether and how a terminally ill individual can choose to control the timing of their death is a topic that cannot be avoided when considering the dementia trajectory. With a focus on the U.S. context, this landscape review considers the status of provisions that would legally permit people facing dementia to hasten death with appropriate support from medical professionals. This review can be used to plan and guide clinical and legal practitioner discussion and policy development concerning evolving questions not fully covered by existing medical decision-making provisions.

Utilization of Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Older Adults During COVID-19 Surges in 2020.

Background: Reports of poor outcomes among older adults with COVID-19 may have changed patient perceptions of Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders or caused providers to pressure older adults into accepting DNR orders to conserve resources. Objective: We determined early-DNR utilization during COVID-19 surges compared with nonsurge periods among nonsurgical adults ≥75 and its connection to hospital mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults ≥75 years using the California Patient Discharge Database 2020. The primary outcome was early-DNR utilization. Control cohorts included nonsurgical adults <75 years in 2020 and nonsurgical adults ≥75 in 2019. Multiple causal inference methods were used to address measured and unmeasured confounding. Results: A total of 487,955 adults ≥75 years were identified, with 233,678 admitted during COVID-19 surges. Older adults admitted during surges had higher rates of early-DNR orders (30.1% vs. 29.4%, absolute risk differences = 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-1.0) even after adjusting for patient case-mix (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04). Patients with early-DNR orders experienced higher hospital mortality (15.5% vs. 4.8%, aOR = 3.96, 95% CI: 3.85-4.06). Difference-in-difference analyses demonstrated that adults <75 years in 2020 and adults ≥75 years in 2019 did not experience variation in early-DNR utilization. Conclusions: Older adults had slightly higher rates of early-DNR orders during COVID-19 surges compared with nonsurge periods. While the difference in early-DNR utilization was small, it was linked to higher odds of death. The increase in early-DNR use only during COVID-19 surges and only among older adults may reflect changes in patient preferences or increased pressure on older adults stemming from provider fears of rationing during COVID-19 surges.

Health Professionals and War in the Middle East.

In this Viewpoint, the author examines whether health care professionals have any responsibilities to speak out about the conflict in the Middle East.

Past: Imperfect; Future: Tense.

How should the field of bioethics grapple with a history that includes ethicists who supported eugenics, scientific racism, and even Nazi medicine and also ethicists who created the salutary policy and practice responses to those heinous aspects of medical history? Learning humility from studying historical errors is one path to improvement; finding courage from studying historical strengths is another, but these can be in tension. This commentary lays out these paths and seeks to apply them both to a contemporary challenge facing the field: why hasn't bioethics been more at the forefront of efforts to address inequities in health and health care?

Ethical Aspects of Physician Decision-Making for Deprescribing Among Older Adults With Dementia.

Importance: Physicians endorse deprescribing of risky or unnecessary medications for older adults (aged ≥65 years) with dementia, but there is a lack of information on what influences decisions to deprescribe in this population. Objective: To understand how physicians make decisions to deprescribe for older adults with moderate dementia and ethical and pragmatic concerns influencing those decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional national mailed survey study of a random sample of 3000 primary care physicians from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile who care for older adults was conducted from January 15 to December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study randomized participants to consider 2 clinical scenarios in which a physician may decide to deprescribe a medication for older adults with moderate dementia: 1 in which the medication could cause an adverse drug event if continued and the other in which there is no evidence of benefit. Participants ranked 9 factors related to possible ethical and pragmatic concerns through best-worst scaling methods (from greatest barrier to smallest barrier to deprescribing). Conditional logit regression quantified the relative importance for each factor as a barrier to deprescribing. Results: A total of 890 physicians (35.0%) returned surveys; 511 (57.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) years since graduation was 26.0 (11.7). Most physicians had a primary specialty in family practice (50.4% [449 of 890]) and internal medicine (43.5% [387 of 890]). A total of 689 surveys were sufficiently complete to analyze. In both clinical scenarios, the 2 greatest barriers to deprescribing were (1) the patient or family reporting symptomatic benefit from the medication (beneficence and autonomy) and (2) the medication having been prescribed by another physician (autonomy and nonmaleficence). The least influential factor was ease of paying for the medication (justice). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this national survey study of primary care physicians suggests that understanding ethical aspects of physician decision-making can inform clinician education about medication management and deprescribing decisions for older adults with moderate dementia.

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.

A multimodal strategy to improve race/ethnic group equity in administration of neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 outpatients.

Introduction: Racial and ethnic minority groups have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe illness, and death; however, they receive monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment at lower rates than non-Hispanic White patients. We report data from a systematic approach to improve equitable provision of COVID-19 neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment. Methods: Treatment was administered at a community health urgent care clinic affiliated with a safety-net urban hospital. The approach included a stable treatment supply, a same-day test and treat model, a referral process, patient outreach, and financial support. We analyzed the race/ethnicity data descriptively and compared proportions using a chi-square test. Results: Over 17 months, 2524 patients received treatment. Compared to the demographics of county COVID-19-positive cases, a greater proportion of patients who received mAb treatment were Hispanic (44.7% treatment vs. 36.5% positive cases, p < 0.001), a lower proportion were White Non-Hispanic (40.7% treatment vs. 46.3% positive cases, p < 0.001), equal proportion were Black (8.2% treatment vs. 7.4% positive cases, P = 0.13), and equal proportion occurred for other race patients. Discussion: Implementation of multiple systematic strategies to administer COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies resulted in an equitable race/ethnic distribution of treatment.

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.

Sources of Clinician Burnout in Providing Care for Underserved Patients in a Safety-Net Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among clinicians is common and can undermine quality of care, patient outcomes, and workforce preservation, but sources of burnout or protective factors unique to clinicians working in safety-net settings are less well understood. Understanding these clinician experiences may inform interventions to reduce burnout. OBJECTIVE: To describe clinician perspectives on sources of burnout in a safety-net healthcare system. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians from multiple disciplines who provided care at a safety-net healthcare system from October 2018 to January 2019. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Forty clinicians (25 female and 15 male; mean [SD] age, 41 [9.1]) participated, including physicians, social workers, advanced practice providers, nurses, psychologists, physical and occupational therapists, and other healthcare professionals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Themes and subthemes that reflected clinician experiences, burnout, and workload expectations. KEY RESULTS: Five themes emerged: limited resources (entrenched social injustices, brokenness of the US healthcare system, precarious discharge options, and "revolving door" readmissions), barriers to building trust with patients (chasm of communication, addressing fear and mistrust, and being exposed to threats), administrative requirements (criticism hampering meaningful care, assuming extra workloads, bureaucratic burden), compassion fatigue (confronting traumatic situations, persistent worry about patient safety and welfare, witnessing mistreatment and stigmatization, overextending and overinvesting, withdrawing and shutting down, blaming self and career crisis), and advocacy as a counterbalance to burnout (solidarity when helping underserved communities, fervent advocacy, and patient gratitude). CONCLUSIONS: Among clinicians who provide care in a safety-net healthcare system, sources of burnout included limited resources, barriers to building trust with patients, administrative requirements, and compassion fatigue, but clinicians remained driven by their desire to advocate for patients. Policy-level interventions which increase funding to safety-net healthcare systems to bolster existing resources and staffing, create peer-support and wellness programs, and support advocacy efforts may mitigate burnout.