Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

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.

The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided.

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Prospective assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses to a 3rd COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose among immunocompromised individuals.

BACKGROUND: Improved COVID-19 prevention is needed for immunocompromised individuals. METHODS: Prospective study of healthcare workers (HCW) and immunocompromised participants with baseline serology following 2 mRNA vaccines and who were retested after dose 3 (D3); multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of serological responses. IFNγ/TNFα T-cell responses were assessed in a subset. RESULTS: 536 participants were included: 492 immunocompromised [(206 solid organ transplant (SOT), 128 autoimmune, 80 hematologic malignancy (HM), 48 solid tumor, 25 HIV], 44 HCW. D3 significantly increased Spike IgG levels among all, but SOT and HM participants had the lowest median antibody levels post-D3 (increase from 0.09 to 0.83 and 0.27 to 1.92, respectively), versus HCW and persons with HIV, autoimmune conditions, and solid tumors (increases from 4.44 to 19.79, 2.9 to 15.75, 3.82 to 16.32, and 4.1 to 25.54, respectively). Seropositivity post-D3 was lowest for SOT (49.0%) and HM (57.8%), versus others (>90% seropositive). Neutralization post-D3 was lowest among SOT and HM. Predictors of lower antibody levels included low baseline levels and shorter intervals between vaccines. T-cell responses against Spike increased significantly among HCW and non-significantly among immunocompromised individuals. CONCLUSIONS: D3 significantly improves serological but not T-cell responses among immunocompromised individuals. SOT and HM patients have suboptimal responses to D3.

Mortality As a Measure of Treatment Effect in Clinical Trials Recruiting Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVES: All-cause mortality is a common measure of treatment effect in ICU-based randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We sought to understand the performance characteristics of a mortality endpoint by evaluating its temporal course, responsiveness to differential treatment effects, and impact when used as an outcome measure in trials of acute illness. DATA SOURCES: We searched OVID Medline for RCTs published from 1990 to 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed RCTs that had randomized greater than or equal to 100 patients, were published in one of five high-impact general medical or eight critical care journals, and reported mortality at two or more distinct time points. We excluded trials recruiting pediatric or neonatal patients and cluster RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: Mortality by randomization group was recorded from the article or estimated from survival curves. Trial impact was assessed by inclusion of results in clinical practice guidelines. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 2,592 potentially eligible trials, we included 343 RCTs (228,784 adult patients). While one third of all deaths by 180 days had occurred by day 7, the risk difference between study arms continued to increase until day 60 (p = 0.01) and possibly day 90 (p = 0.07) and remained stable thereafter. The number of deaths at ICU discharge approximated those at 28-30 days (95% [interquartile range [IQR], 86-106%]), and deaths at hospital discharge approximated those at 60 days (99% [IQR, 94-104%]). Only 13 of 43 interventions (30.2%) showing a mortality benefit have been adopted into widespread clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a conceptual framework for choosing a time horizon and interpreting mortality outcome in trials of acute illness. Differential mortality effects persist for 60 to 90 days following recruitment. Location-based measures approximate time-based measures for trials conducted outside the United States. The documentation of a mortality reduction has had a modest impact on practice.

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.

Prevalence of long-term decision regret and associated risk factors in a large cohort of ICU surrogate decision makers.

BACKGROUND: Whether surrogate decision makers regret decisions about the use of life support for incapacitated, critically ill patients remain uncertain. We sought to determine the prevalence of decision regret among surrogates of adult ICU patients and identify factors that influence regret. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the PARTNER 2 trial, which tested a family support intervention for surrogates of critically ill adults. At 6-month follow-up, surrogates rated their regret about life support decisions using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more regret. We used multiple linear regression to identify covariates associated with decision regret based on a psychological construct of regret. We constructed two models using the full cohort; model 1 included patient outcomes; model 2 focused on covariates known at the time of ICU decision-making. Subgroup analyses were also conducted based on patient survival status at hospital discharge and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: 748 of 848 surrogates had complete DRS data. The median (IQR) DRS score was 15 (0, 25). Overall, 54% reported mild regret (DRS 5-25), 19% moderate-strong regret (DRS 30-100), and 27% no regret (DRS 0). Poor patient outcome at 6 months (death or severe functional dependence) was associated with more regret in model 1 (ß 10.1; 95% C.I. 3.2, 17.0). In model 2, palliative care consultation (3.0; 0.1, 5.9), limitations in life support (LS) prior to death (6.3; 3.1, 9.4) and surrogate black race (6.3; 0.3, 12.3) were associated with more regret. Other modulators of regret in subgroup analyses included surrogate age and education level, surrogate-patient relationship, death in hospital (compared to the post-discharge period), and code status at time of ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: One in five ICU surrogate decision makers experience moderate to strong regret about life support decisions in ICU. Poor patient outcomes are linked to more regret. Decisions to limit life support prior to patient death may also increase regret. Future studies are needed to understand how regret relates to decision quality and how to lessen lasting regret.

Time to treatment and mortality for clinical sepsis subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is common, deadly, and heterogenous. Prior analyses of patients with sepsis and septic shock in New York State showed a risk-adjusted association between more rapid antibiotic administration and bundled care completion, but not an intravenous fluid bolus, with reduced in-hospital mortality. However, it is unknown if clinically identifiable sepsis subtypes modify these associations. METHODS: Secondary analysis of patients with sepsis and septic shock enrolled in the New York State Department of Health cohort from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. Patients were classified as clinical sepsis subtypes (α, ß, γ, δ-types) using the Sepsis ENdotyping in Emergency CAre (SENECA) approach. Exposure variables included time to 3-h sepsis bundle completion, antibiotic administration, and intravenous fluid bolus completion. Then logistic regression models evaluated the interaction between exposures, clinical sepsis subtypes, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 55,169 hospitalizations from 155 hospitals were included (34% α, 30% ß, 19% γ, 17% δ). The α-subtype had the lowest (N = 1,905, 10%) and δ-subtype had the highest (N = 3,776, 41%) in-hospital mortality. Each hour to completion of the 3-h bundle (aOR, 1.04 [95%CI, 1.02-1.05]) and antibiotic initiation (aOR, 1.03 [95%CI, 1.02-1.04]) was associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. The association differed across subtypes (p-interactions < 0.05). For example, the outcome association for the time to completion of the 3-h bundle was greater in the δ-subtype (aOR, 1.07 [95%CI, 1.05-1.10]) compared to α-subtype (aOR, 1.02 [95%CI, 0.99-1.04]). Time to intravenous fluid bolus completion was not associated with risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.99 [95%CI, 0.97-1.01]) and did not differ among subtypes (p-interaction = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Timely completion of a 3-h sepsis bundle and antibiotic initiation was associated with reduced risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality, an association modified by clinically identifiable sepsis subtype.

A voice-based digital assistant for intelligent prompting of evidence-based practices during ICU rounds.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the technical feasibility and potential value of a digital assistant that prompts intensive care unit (ICU) rounding teams to use evidence-based practices based on analysis of their real-time discussions. METHODS: We evaluated a novel voice-based digital assistant which audio records and processes the ICU care team's rounding discussions to determine which evidence-based practices are applicable to the patient but have yet to be addressed by the team. The system would then prompt the team to consider indicated but not yet delivered practices, thereby reducing cognitive burden compared to traditional rigid rounding checklists. In a retrospective analysis, we applied automatic transcription, natural language processing, and a rule-based expert system to generate personalized prompts for each patient in 106 audio-recorded ICU rounding discussions. To assess technical feasibility, we compared the system's prompts to those created by experienced critical care nurses who directly observed rounds. To assess potential value, we also compared the system's prompts to a hypothetical paper checklist containing all evidence-based practices. RESULTS: The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, true positive rate, and true negative rate of the system's prompts were 0.45 ± 0.06, 0.83 ± 0.04, 0.68 ± 0.07, and 0.66 ± 0.04, respectively. If implemented in lieu of a paper checklist, the system would generate 56% fewer prompts per patient, with 50%±17% greater precision. CONCLUSION: A voice-based digital assistant can reduce prompts per patient compared to traditional approaches for improving evidence uptake on ICU rounds. Additional work is needed to evaluate field performance and team acceptance.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures: Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Prospective Evaluation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Responses Across a Broad Spectrum of Immunocompromising Conditions: the COVID-19 Vaccination in the Immunocompromised Study (COVICS).

BACKGROUND: We studied humoral responses after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination across varying causes of immunodeficiency. METHODS: Prospective study of fully vaccinated immunocompromised adults (solid organ transplant [SOT], hematologic malignancy, solid cancers, autoimmune conditions, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]) versus nonimmunocompromised healthcare workers (HCWs). The primary outcome was the proportion with a reactive test (seropositive) for immunoglobulin G to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of antibody levels and their correlation with pseudovirus neutralization titers. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 1271 participants enrolled: 1099 immunocompromised and 172 HCW. Compared with HCW (92.4% seropositive), seropositivity was lower among participants with SOT (30.7%), hematological malignancies (50.0%), autoimmune conditions (79.1%), solid tumors (78.7%), and HIV (79.8%) (P < .01). Factors associated with poor seropositivity included age, greater immunosuppression, time since vaccination, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or adenovirus vector vaccines versus messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 (Moderna). mRNA-1273 was associated with higher antibody levels than BNT162b2 or adenovirus vector vaccines after adjusting for time since vaccination, age, and underlying condition. Antibody levels were strongly correlated with pseudovirus neutralization titers (Spearman r = 0.89, P < .0001), but in seropositive participants with intermediate antibody levels, neutralization titers were significantly lower in immunocompromised individuals versus HCW. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccines were lowest among SOT and anti-CD20 monoclonal recipients, and recipients of vaccines other than mRNA-1273. Among those with intermediate antibody levels, pseudovirus neutralization titers were lower in immunocompromised patients than HCWs. Additional SARS-CoV-2 preventive approaches are needed for immunocompromised persons, which may need to be tailored to the cause of immunodeficiency.

Early Neuromuscular Blockade in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of early continuous neuromuscular blockade in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who are receiving mechanical ventilation remain unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS (defined by a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of <150 mm Hg with a positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] of ≥8 cm of water) to a 48-hour continuous infusion of cisatracurium with concomitant deep sedation (intervention group) or to a usual-care approach without routine neuromuscular blockade and with lighter sedation targets (control group). The same mechanical-ventilation strategies were used in both groups, including a strategy involving a high PEEP. The primary end point was in-hospital death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: The trial was stopped at the second interim analysis for futility. We enrolled 1006 patients early after the onset of moderate-to-severe ARDS (median, 7.6 hours after onset). During the first 48 hours after randomization, 488 of the 501 patients (97.4%) in the intervention group started a continuous infusion of cisatracurium (median duration of infusion, 47.8 hours; median dose, 1807 mg), and 86 of the 505 patients (17.0%) in the control group received a neuromuscular blocking agent (median dose, 38 mg). At 90 days, 213 patients (42.5%) in the intervention group and 216 (42.8%) in the control group had died before hospital discharge (between-group difference, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.4 to 5.9; P = 0.93). While in the hospital, patients in the intervention group were less physically active and had more adverse cardiovascular events than patients in the control group. There were no consistent between-group differences in end points assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS who were treated with a strategy involving a high PEEP, there was no significant difference in mortality at 90 days between patients who received an early and continuous cisatracurium infusion and those who were treated with a usual-care approach with lighter sedation targets. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02509078.).

Association of Metformin Use During Hospitalization and Mortality in Critically Ill Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Whether metformin exposure is associated with improved outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Patients admitted to ICUs in 16 hospitals in Pennsylvania from October 2008 to December 2014. PATIENTS: Adult critical ill patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare 90-day mortality in diabetic patients with sepsis with and without exposure to metformin during hospitalization. Data were obtained from the electronic health record of a large healthcare system in Pennsylvania from October 2008 to December 2014, on patients admitted to the ICU at any of the 16 hospitals within the system. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. The absolute and adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were calculated in a propensity score-matched cohort. Among 14,847 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and sepsis, 682 patients (4.6%) were exposed to metformin during hospitalization and 14,165 (95.4%) were not. Within a total of 2,691 patients subjected to propensity score-matching at a 1:4 ratio, exposure to metformin (n = 599) was associated with decreased 90-day mortality (71/599, 11.9% vs 475/2,092, 22.7%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35-0.60), reduced severe acute kidney injury (50% vs 57%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90), less Major Adverse Kidney Events at 1 year (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.22-0.68), and increased renal recovery (95% vs 86%; OR, 6.43; 95% CI, 3.42-12.1). CONCLUSIONS: Metformin exposure during hospitalization is associated with a decrease in 90-day mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and sepsis.

A Research Agenda for Precision Medicine in Sepsis and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Precision medicine focuses on the identification of therapeutic strategies that are effective for a group of patients based on similar unifying characteristics. The recent success of precision medicine in non-critical care settings has resulted from the confluence of large clinical and biospecimen repositories, innovative bioinformatics, and novel trial designs. Similar advances for precision medicine in sepsis and in the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are possible but will require further investigation and significant investment in infrastructure. Methods: This project was funded by the American Thoracic Society Board of Directors. A multidisciplinary and diverse working group reviewed the available literature, established a conceptual framework, and iteratively developed recommendations for the Precision Medicine Research Agenda for Sepsis and ARDS. Results: The following six priority recommendations were developed by the working group: 1) the creation of large richly phenotyped and harmonized knowledge networks of clinical, imaging, and multianalyte molecular data for sepsis and ARDS; 2) the implementation of novel trial designs, including adaptive designs, and embedding trial procedures in the electronic health record; 3) continued innovation in the data science and engineering methods required to identify heterogeneity of treatment effect; 4) further development of the tools necessary for the real-time application of precision medicine approaches; 5) work to ensure that precision medicine strategies are applicable and available to a broad range of patients varying across differing racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and demographic groups; and 6) the securement and maintenance of adequate and sustainable funding for precision medicine efforts. Conclusions: Precision medicine approaches that incorporate variability in genomic, biologic, and environmental factors may provide a path forward for better individualizing the delivery of therapies and improving care for patients with sepsis and ARDS.

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After the Introduction of the Medicare Sepsis Performance Measure (SEP-1).

BACKGROUND: Medicare requires that hospitals report on their adherence to the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of SEP-1 on treatment patterns and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of hospitals using repeated cross-sectional cohorts of patients. SETTING: 11 hospitals within an integrated health system. PATIENTS: 54 225 encounters between January 2013 and December 2017 for adults with sepsis who were hospitalized through the emergency department. INTERVENTION: Onset of the SEP-1 reporting requirement in October 2015. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in SEP-1-targeted processes, including antibiotic administration, lactate measurement, and fluid administration at 3 hours from sepsis onset; repeated lactate and vasopressor administration for hypotension within 6 hours of sepsis onset; and sepsis outcomes, including risk-adjusted intensive care unit (ICU) admission, in-hospital mortality, and home discharge among survivors. RESULTS: Two years after its implementation, SEP-1 was associated with variable changes in process measures, with the greatest effect being an increase in lactate measurement within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 23.7 percentage points [95% CI, 20.7 to 26.7 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There were small increases in antibiotic administration (absolute increase, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 1.9 to 7.6 percentage points]; P = 0.001) and fluid administration of 30 mL/kg of body weight within 3 hours of sepsis onset (absolute increase, 3.4 percentage points [CI, 1.5 to 5.2 percentage points]; P < 0.001). There was no change in vasopressor administration. There was a small increase in ICU admissions (absolute increase, 2.0 percentage points [CI, 0 to 4.0 percentage points]; P = 0.055) and no changes in mortality (absolute change, 0.1 percentage points [CI, -0.9 to 1.1 percentage points]; P = 0.87) or discharge to home. LIMITATION: Data are from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the SEP-1 mandatory reporting program was associated with variable changes in process measures, without improvements in clinical outcomes. Revising the measure may optimize its future effect. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Association of Acute Respiratory Failure in Early Childhood With Long-term Neurocognitive Outcomes.

Importance: Approximately 23 700 US children undergo invasive mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure annually, with unknown long-term effects on neurocognitive function. Objective: To evaluate neurocognitive outcomes of children who survive pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) hospitalization for acute respiratory failure compared with their biological siblings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective sibling-matched cohort study conducted at 31 US PICUs and associated neuropsychology testing centers. Patients were 8 years or younger with a Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 (normal) before PICU admission and less than or equal to 3 (no worse than moderate neurocognitive dysfunction) at PICU discharge, excluding patients with a history of neurocognitive deficits or who were readmitted and underwent mechanical ventilation. Biological siblings were aged 4 to 16 years at testing, with Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 and no history of mechanical ventilation or general anesthesia. A total of 121 sibling pairs were enrolled from September 2, 2014, to December 13, 2017, and underwent neurocognitive testing starting March 14, 2015. The date of the final follow-up was November 6, 2018. Exposures: Critical illness and PICU treatment for acute respiratory failure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was IQ, estimated by the age-appropriate Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale. Secondary outcomes included measures of attention, processing speed, learning and memory, visuospatial skills, motor skills, language, and executive function. Evaluations occurred 3 to 8 years after hospital discharge. Results: Patients (n = 121; 55 [45%] female patients) underwent PICU care at a median (IQR) age of 1.0 (0.2-3.2) years, received a median (IQR) of 5.5 (3.1-7.7) days of invasive mechanical ventilation, and were tested at a median (IQR) age of 6.6 (5.4-9.1) years. Matched siblings (n = 121; 72 [60%] female siblings) were tested at a median (IQR) age of 8.4 (7.0-10.2) years. Patients had a lower mean estimated IQ than matched siblings (101.5 vs 104.3; mean difference, -2.8 [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.2]). Among secondary outcomes, patients had significantly lower scores than matched siblings on nonverbal memory (mean difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.3]), visuospatial skills (mean difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1]), and fine motor control (mean difference, -3.1 [95% CI, -4.9 to -1.4]) and significantly higher scores on processing speed (mean difference, 4.4 [95% CI, 0.2-8.5]). There were no significant differences in the remaining secondary outcomes, including attention, verbal memory, expressive language, and executive function. Conclusions and Relevance: Among children, survival of PICU hospitalization for respiratory failure and discharge without severe cognitive dysfunction was associated with significantly lower subsequent IQ scores compared with matched siblings. However, the magnitude of the difference was small and of uncertain clinical importance.

Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection. It is considered a major cause of health loss, but data for the global burden of sepsis are limited. As a syndrome caused by underlying infection, sepsis is not part of standard Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) estimates. Accurate estimates are important to inform and monitor health policy interventions, allocation of resources, and clinical treatment initiatives. We estimated the global, regional, and national incidence of sepsis and mortality from this disorder using data from GBD 2017. METHODS: We used multiple cause-of-death data from 109 million individual death records to calculate mortality related to sepsis among each of the 282 underlying causes of death in GBD 2017. The percentage of sepsis-related deaths by underlying GBD cause in each location worldwide was modelled using mixed-effects linear regression. Sepsis-related mortality for each age group, sex, location, GBD cause, and year (1990-2017) was estimated by applying modelled cause-specific fractions to GBD 2017 cause-of-death estimates. We used data for 8·7 million individual hospital records to calculate in-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality, stratified by underlying GBD cause. In-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality was modelled for each location using linear regression, and sepsis incidence was estimated by applying modelled case-fatality to sepsis-related mortality estimates. FINDINGS: In 2017, an estimated 48·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38·9-62·9) incident cases of sepsis were recorded worldwide and 11·0 million (10·1-12·0) sepsis-related deaths were reported, representing 19·7% (18·2-21·4) of all global deaths. Age-standardised sepsis incidence fell by 37·0% (95% UI 11·8-54·5) and mortality decreased by 52·8% (47·7-57·5) from 1990 to 2017. Sepsis incidence and mortality varied substantially across regions, with the highest burden in sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, south Asia, east Asia, and southeast Asia. INTERPRETATION: Despite declining age-standardised incidence and mortality, sepsis remains a major cause of health loss worldwide and has an especially high health-related burden in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh, the British Columbia Children's Hospital Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.

A Randomized Trial of a Family-Support Intervention in Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: Surrogate decision makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle with decisions related to goals of care. Such decisions cause psychological distress in surrogates and may lead to treatment that does not align with patients' preferences. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial involving patients with a high risk of death and their surrogates in five intensive care units (ICUs) to compare a multicomponent family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team with usual care. The primary outcome was the surrogates' mean score on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 6 months (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms). Prespecified secondary outcomes were the surrogates' mean scores on the Impact of Event Scale (IES; scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), the Quality of Communication (QOC) scale (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better clinician-family communication), and a modified Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC) scale (scores range from 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating more patient- and family-centered care), as well as the mean length of ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group in the surrogates' mean HADS score at 6 months (11.7 and 12.0, respectively; beta coefficient, -0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to 0.99; P=0.61) or mean IES score (21.2 and 20.3; beta coefficient, 0.90; 95% CI, -1.66 to 3.47; P=0.49). The surrogates' mean QOC score was better in the intervention group than in the control group (69.1 vs. 62.7; beta coefficient, 6.39; 95% CI, 2.57 to 10.20; P=0.001), as was the mean modified PPPC score (1.7 vs. 1.8; beta coefficient, -0.15; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.04; P=0.006). The mean length of stay in the ICU was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (6.7 days vs. 7.4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.00; P=0.045), a finding mediated by the shortened mean length of stay in the ICU among patients who died (4.4 days vs. 6.8 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.78; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients and their surrogates, a family-support intervention delivered by the interprofessional ICU team did not significantly affect the surrogates' burden of psychological symptoms, but the surrogates' ratings of the quality of communication and the patient- and family-centeredness of care were better and the length of stay in the ICU was shorter with the intervention than with usual care. (Funded by the UPMC Health System and the Greenwall Foundation; PARTNER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844492 .).

Procalcitonin-Guided Use of Antibiotics for Lower Respiratory Tract Infection.

BACKGROUND: The effect of procalcitonin-guided use of antibiotics on treatment for suspected lower respiratory tract infection is unclear. METHODS: In 14 U.S. hospitals with high adherence to quality measures for the treatment of pneumonia, we provided guidance for clinicians about national clinical practice recommendations for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections and the interpretation of procalcitonin assays. We then randomly assigned patients who presented to the emergency department with a suspected lower respiratory tract infection and for whom the treating physician was uncertain whether antibiotic therapy was indicated to one of two groups: the procalcitonin group, in which the treating clinicians were provided with real-time initial (and serial, if the patient was hospitalized) procalcitonin assay results and an antibiotic use guideline with graded recommendations based on four tiers of procalcitonin levels, or the usual-care group. We hypothesized that within 30 days after enrollment the total antibiotic-days would be lower - and the percentage of patients with adverse outcomes would not be more than 4.5 percentage points higher - in the procalcitonin group than in the usual-care group. RESULTS: A total of 1656 patients were included in the final analysis cohort (826 randomly assigned to the procalcitonin group and 830 to the usual-care group), of whom 782 (47.2%) were hospitalized and 984 (59.4%) received antibiotics within 30 days. The treating clinician received procalcitonin assay results for 792 of 826 patients (95.9%) in the procalcitonin group (median time from sample collection to assay result, 77 minutes) and for 18 of 830 patients (2.2%) in the usual-care group. In both groups, the procalcitonin-level tier was associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics in the emergency department. There was no significant difference between the procalcitonin group and the usual-care group in antibiotic-days (mean, 4.2 and 4.3 days, respectively; difference, -0.05 day; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.5; P=0.87) or the proportion of patients with adverse outcomes (11.7% [96 patients] and 13.1% [109 patients]; difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.6 to 1.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority) within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of procalcitonin assay results, along with instructions on their interpretation, to emergency department and hospital-based clinicians did not result in less use of antibiotics than did usual care among patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02130986 .).