Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 µg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28. RESULTS: Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo2 target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).

Out-of-Hospital Intranasal Ketamine as an Adjunct to Fentanyl for the Treatment of Acute Traumatic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if out-of-hospital administration of fentanyl and intranasal ketamine, compared to fentanyl alone, improves early pain control after injury. METHODS: We conducted an out-of-hospital randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, parallel group clinical trial from October 2017 to December 2021. Participants were male, aged 18 to 65 years, receiving fentanyl to treat acute traumatic pain prior to hospital arrival, treated by an urban fire-based emergency medical services agency, and transported to the region's only adult Level I trauma center. Participants randomly received 50 mg intranasal ketamine or placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion with a minimum 2-point reduction in self-described pain on the verbal numerical rating scale 30 minutes after study drug administration assessed by 95% confidence interval overlap. Secondary outcomes were side effects, pain ratings, and additional pain medications through the first 3 hours of care. RESULTS: Among the 192 participants enrolled, 89 (46%) were White, (median age, 36 years; interquartile range, 27 to 53 years), with 103 receiving ketamine and 89 receiving placebo. There was no difference in the proportion experiencing improved pain 30 minutes after treatment (46/103 [44.7%] ketamine versus 32/89 [36.0%] placebo; difference in proportions, 8.7%; 95% confidence interval, -5.1% to 22.5%; P=.22) or at any time point through 3 hours. There was no difference in secondary outcomes or side effects. CONCLUSION: In our sample, we did not detect an analgesic benefit of adding 50 mg intranasal ketamine to fentanyl in out-of-hospital trauma patients.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2)-Associated Hospitalized Illness: United States, 2022.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by an increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multistate sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2-positive controls. RESULTS: A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2-negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2-positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95% CI: -14% to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (-54% to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (15-71%) among adults aged 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted.

The IMpact of PerioperAtive KeTamine on Enhanced Recovery after Abdominal Surgery (IMPAKT ERAS): protocol for a pragmatic, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesic strategies that reduce perioperative opioid consumption are well-supported in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) literature. However, the optimal analgesic regimen has not been established, as the contributions of each individual agent to the overall analgesic efficacy with opioid reduction remains unknown. Perioperative ketamine infusions can decrease opioid consumption and opioid-related side effects. However, as opioid requirements are drastically minimized within ERAS models, the differential effects of ketamine within an ERAS pathway remain unknown. We aim to pragmatically investigate through a learning healthcare system infrastructure how the addition of a perioperative ketamine infusion to mature ERAS pathways affects functional recovery. METHODS: The IMPAKT ERAS trial (IMpact of PerioperAtive KeTamine on Enhanced Recovery after Abdominal Surgery) is a single center, pragmatic, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. 1544 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery will be randomly allocated to receive intraoperative and postoperative (up to 48 h) ketamine versus placebo infusions as part of a perioperative multimodal analgesic regimen. The primary outcome is length of stay, defined as surgical start time until hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes will include a variety of in-hospital clinical end points derived from the electronic health record. DISCUSSION: We aimed to launch a large-scale, pragmatic trial that would easily integrate into routine clinical workflow. Implementation of a modified consent process was critical to preserving our pragmatic design, permitting an efficient, low-cost model without reliance on external study personnel. Therefore, we partnered with leaders of our Investigational Review Board to develop a novel, modified consent process and shortened written consent form that would meet all standard elements of informed consent, yet also allow clinical providers the ability to recruit and enroll patients during their clinical workflow. Our trial design has created a platform for subsequent pragmatic studies at our institution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04625283, Pre-results.

Walk before you run: Feasibility challenges and lessons learned from the PROCLAIM study, a multicenter randomized controlled trial of misoprostol for prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile during COVID-19.

We analyzed our challenging experience with a randomized controlled trial of misoprostol for prevention of recurrent C. difficile. Despite careful prescreening and thoughtful protocol modifications to facilitate enrollment, we closed the study early after enrolling just 7 participants over 3 years. We share lessons learned, noting the importance of feasibility studies, inclusion of biomarker outcomes, and dissemination of such findings to inform future research design and implementation successes.

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

Importance: The effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28. Results: Among 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Blood Pressure Management After Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The BEST-II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of moderate systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering after successful recanalization with endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke are uncertain. Objective: To determine the futility of lower SBP targets after endovascular therapy (<140 mm Hg or 160 mm Hg) compared with a higher target (≤180 mm Hg). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, blinded end point, phase 2, futility clinical trial that enrolled 120 patients with acute ischemic stroke who had undergone successful endovascular therapy at 3 US comprehensive stroke centers from January 2020 to March 2022 (final follow-up, June 2022). Intervention: After undergoing endovascular therapy, participants were randomized to 1 of 3 SBP targets: 40 to less than 140 mm Hg, 40 to less than 160 mm Hg, and 40 to 180 mm Hg or less (guideline recommended) group, initiated within 60 minutes of recanalization and maintained for 24 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified multiple primary outcomes for the primary futility analysis were follow-up infarct volume measured at 36 (±12) hours and utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range, 0 [worst] to 1 [best]) at 90 (±14) days. Linear regression models were used to test the harm-futility boundaries of a 10-mL increase (slope of 0.5) in the follow-up infarct volume or a 0.10 decrease (slope of -0.005) in the utility-weighted mRS score with each 20-mm Hg SBP target reduction after endovascular therapy (1-sided α = .05). Additional prespecified futility criterion was a less than 25% predicted probability of success for a future 2-group, superiority trial comparing SBP targets of the low- and mid-thresholds with the high-threshold (maximum sample size, 1500 with respect to the utility-weighted mRS score outcome). Results: Among 120 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [14.5] years; 69 females [58%]), 113 (94.2%) completed the trial. The mean follow-up infarct volume was 32.4 mL (95% CI, 18.0 to 46.7 mL) for the less than 140-mm Hg group, 50.7 mL (95% CI, 33.7 to 67.7 mL), for the less than 160-mm Hg group, and 46.4 mL (95% CI, 24.5 to 68.2 mL) for the 180-mm Hg or less group. The mean utility-weighted mRS score was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.63) for the less than 140-mm Hg group, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.60) for the less than 160-mm Hg group, and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.71) for the high-target group. The slope of the follow-up infarct volume for each mm Hg decrease in the SBP target, adjusted for the baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score, was -0.29 (95% CI, -0.81 to ∞; futility P = .99). The slope of the utility-weighted mRS score for each mm Hg decrease in the SBP target after endovascular therapy, adjusted for baseline utility-weighted mRS score, was -0.0019 (95% CI, -∞ to 0.0017; futility P = .93). Comparing the high-target SBP group with the lower-target groups, the predicted probability of success for a future trial was 25% for the less than 140-mm Hg group and 14% for the 160-mm Hg group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke, lower SBP targets less than either 140 mm Hg or 160 mm Hg after successful endovascular therapy did not meet prespecified criteria for futility compared with an SBP target of 180 mm Hg or less. However, the findings suggested a low probability of benefit from lower SBP targets after endovascular therapy if tested in a future larger trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04116112.

Household Transmission of Influenza A Viruses in 2021-2022.

Importance: Influenza virus infections declined globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. Loss of natural immunity from lower rates of influenza infection and documented antigenic changes in circulating viruses may have resulted in increased susceptibility to influenza virus infection during the 2021-2022 influenza season. Objective: To compare the risk of influenza virus infection among household contacts of patients with influenza during the 2021-2022 influenza season with risk of influenza virus infection among household contacts during influenza seasons before the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study of influenza transmission enrolled households in 2 states before the COVID-19 pandemic (2017-2020) and in 4 US states during the 2021-2022 influenza season. Primary cases were individuals with the earliest laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H3N2) virus infection in a household. Household contacts were people living with the primary cases who self-collected nasal swabs daily for influenza molecular testing and completed symptom diaries daily for 5 to 10 days after enrollment. Exposures: Household contacts living with a primary case. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H3N2) virus infection in household contacts during the 2021-2022 season compared with prepandemic seasons. Risk estimates were adjusted for age, vaccination status, frequency of interaction with the primary case, and household density. Subgroup analyses by age, vaccination status, and frequency of interaction with the primary case were also conducted. Results: During the prepandemic seasons, 152 primary cases (median age, 13 years; 3.9% Black; 52.0% female) and 353 household contacts (median age, 33 years; 2.8% Black; 54.1% female) were included and during the 2021-2022 influenza season, 84 primary cases (median age, 10 years; 13.1% Black; 52.4% female) and 186 household contacts (median age, 28.5 years; 14.0% Black; 63.4% female) were included in the analysis. During the prepandemic influenza seasons, 20.1% (71/353) of household contacts were infected with influenza A(H3N2) viruses compared with 50.0% (93/186) of household contacts in 2021-2022. The adjusted relative risk of A(H3N2) virus infection in 2021-2022 was 2.31 (95% CI, 1.86-2.86) compared with prepandemic seasons. Conclusions and Relevance: Among cohorts in 5 US states, there was a significantly increased risk of household transmission of influenza A(H3N2) in 2021-2022 compared with prepandemic seasons. Additional research is needed to understand reasons for this association.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. METHODS: We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls. RESULTS: Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses. CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses.

Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19 Hospitalization by Age and Chronic Medical Conditions Burden Among Immunocompetent US Adults, March-August 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization was evaluated among immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) during March-August 2021 using a case-control design. Among 1669 hospitalized COVID-19 cases (11% fully vaccinated) and 1950 RT-PCR-negative controls (54% fully vaccinated), VE was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-98%) among patients with no chronic medical conditions and 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%) among patients with ≥ 3 categories of conditions. VE was similar between those aged 18-64 years versus ≥65 years (P > .05). VE against severe COVID-19 was very high among adults without chronic conditions and lessened with increasing comorbidity burden.

Effectiveness of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Messenger RNA Vaccines for Preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Multicenter International Cohort Validation of a Modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Using the Richmond Agitation-sedation Scale.

OBJECTIVE: In a multicenter, international cohort, we aimed to validate a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, hypothesized as comparable to the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)-based Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The SOFA score, whose neurologic component is based on the GCS, can predict intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. But, GCS is often missing in lieu of other assessments, such as the also reliable and validated Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS). Single-center data suggested an RASS-based SOFA (mSOFA) predicted ICU mortality. METHODS: Our nested cohort within the prospective 2016 Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation contains 4120 ventilated patients with daily RASS and GCS assessments (20,023 patient-days, 32 countries). We estimated GCS from RASS via a proportional odds model without adjustment. ICU mortality logistic regression models and c-statistics were constructed using SOFA (measured GCS) and mSOFA (measured RASS-estimated GCS), adjusted for age, sex, body-mass index, region (Europe, USA-Canada, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia-New Zealand), and postoperative status (medical/surgical). RESULTS: Cohort-wide, the mean SOFA=9.4+/-2.8 and mean mSOFA = 10.0+/-2.3, with ICU mortality = 31%. Mean SOFA and mSOFA similarly predicted ICU mortality (SOFA: AUC = 0.784, 95% CI = 0.769-0.799; mSOFA: AUC = 0.778, 95% CI = 0.763-0.793, P = 0.139). Across models, other predictors of mortality included higher age, female sex, medical patient, and African region (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first SOFA modification with RASS in a "real-world" international cohort. Estimating GCS from RASS preserves predictive validity of SOFA to predict ICU mortality. Alternative neurologic measurements like RASS can be viably integrated into severity of illness scoring systems like SOFA.

Integrated PERSEVERE and endothelial biomarker risk model predicts death and persistent MODS in pediatric septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) is a critical driver of sepsis morbidity and mortality in children. Early identification of those at risk of death and persistent organ dysfunctions is necessary to enrich patients for future trials of sepsis therapeutics. Here, we sought to integrate endothelial and PERSEVERE biomarkers to estimate the composite risk of death or organ dysfunctions on day 7 of septic shock. METHODS: We measured endothelial dysfunction markers from day 1 serum among those with existing PERSEVERE data. TreeNet® classification model was derived incorporating 22 clinical and biological variables to estimate risk. Based on relative variable importance, a simplified 6-biomarker model was developed thereafter. RESULTS: Among 502 patients, 49 patients died before day 7 and 124 patients had persistence of MODS on day 7 of septic shock. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for the newly derived PERSEVEREnce model to predict death or day 7 MODS was 0.93 (0.91-0.95) with a summary AUROC of 0.80 (0.76-0.84) upon tenfold cross-validation. The simplified model, based on IL-8, HSP70, ICAM-1, Angpt2/Tie2, Angpt2/Angpt1, and Thrombomodulin, performed similarly. Interaction between variables-ICAM-1 with IL-8 and Thrombomodulin with Angpt2/Angpt1-contributed to the models' predictive capabilities. Model performance varied when estimating risk of individual organ dysfunctions with AUROCS ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 and 0.68 to 0.89 in training and test sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The newly derived PERSEVEREnce biomarker model reliably estimates risk of death or persistent organ dysfunctions on day 7 of septic shock. If validated, this tool can be used for prognostic enrichment in future pediatric trials of sepsis therapeutics.

Protocolized Postextubation Respiratory Support to Prevent Reintubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula) applied at the time of extubation has been reported to reduce reintubation rates, but concerns regarding effectiveness have limited uptake into practice.Objectives: To determine if providing postextubation respiratory support to all patients undergoing extubation in a medical ICU would decrease the incidence of reintubation.Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, two-armed, cluster-crossover trial of adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, in the medical ICU of an academic medical center. Patients were assigned to either protocolized postextubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol in which patients with suspected hypercapnia received noninvasive ventilation and patients without suspected hypercapnia received high-flow nasal cannula) or usual care (postextubation management at the discretion of treating clinicians). The primary outcome was reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 751 patients were enrolled. Of the 359 patients assigned to protocolized support, 331 (92.2%) received postextubation respiratory support compared with 66 of 392 patients (16.8%) assigned to usual care, a difference driven by differential use of high-flow nasal cannula (74.7% vs. 2.8%). A total of 57 patients (15.9%) in the protocolized support group experienced reintubation compared with 52 patients (13.3%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.84; P = 0.32).Conclusions: Among a broad population of critically ill adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation at an academic medical center, protocolized postextubation respiratory support, primarily characterized by an increase in the use of high-flow nasal cannula, did not prevent reintubation compared with usual care.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT0328831).

Effect of Fluid Bolus Administration on Cardiovascular Collapse Among Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain. Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge. Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787732.

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

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

Modeling the Impacts of Clinical Influenza Testing on Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Estimates.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design studies for evaluating influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) enroll patients with acute respiratory infection. Enrollment typically occurs before influenza status is determined, resulting in over-enrollment of influenza-negative patients. With availability of rapid and accurate molecular clinical testing, influenza status could be ascertained before enrollment, thus improving study efficiency. We estimate potential biases in VE when using clinical testing. METHODS: We simulate data assuming 60% vaccinated, 25% of those vaccinated are influenza positive, and VE of 50%. We show the effect on VE in 5 scenarios. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness is affected only when clinical testing preferentially targets patients based on both vaccination and influenza status. Vaccine effectiveness is overestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 39% of vaccinated influenza-positive patients and 24% of others. VE is also overestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 8% of unvaccinated influenza-positive patients and 27% of others. Vaccine effectiveness is underestimated by 10% if nontesting occurs in 32% of unvaccinated influenza-negative patients and 18% of others. CONCLUSIONS: Although differential clinical testing by vaccine receipt and influenza positivity may produce errors in estimated VE, bias in testing would have to be substantial and overall proportion of patients tested would have to be small to result in a meaningful difference in VE.