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

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were authorized for the treatment of COVID-19 outpatients based on clinical trials completed early in the pandemic, which were underpowered for mortality and subgroup analyses. Real-world data studies are promising for further assessing rapidly deployed therapeutics. RESEARCH QUESTION: Did mAb treatment prevent progression to severe disease and death across pandemic phases and based on risk factors, including prior vaccination status? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This observational cohort study included nonhospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from November 2020 to October 2021 using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. Using propensity matching, we selected approximately 2.5 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and hospitalization severity. RESULTS: Of 36,077 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,675 receiving mAbs were matched to 6,677 patients not receiving mAbs. Compared with mAb-untreated patients, mAb-treated patients had lower all-cause hospitalization (4.0% vs 7.7%; adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and all-cause mortality (0.1% vs 0.9%; adjusted OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.29) to day 28; differences persisted to day 90. Among hospitalized patients, mAb-treated patients had shorter hospital length of stay (5.8 vs 8.5 days) and lower risk of mechanical ventilation (4.6% vs 16.6%). Results were similar for preventing hospitalizations during the Delta variant phase (adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.50) and across subgroups. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent hospitalization was lower for subgroups with higher baseline risk of hospitalization; for example, multiple comorbidities (NNT = 17) and not fully vaccinated (NNT = 24) vs no comorbidities (NNT = 88) and fully vaccinated (NNT = 81). INTERPRETATION: Real-world data revealed a strong association between receipt of mAbs and reduced hospitalization and deaths among COVID-19 outpatients across pandemic phases. Real-world data studies should be used to guide practice and policy decisions, including allocation of scarce resources.

Real-world evaluation of bebtelovimab effectiveness during the period of COVID-19 Omicron variants, including BA.4/BA.5.

OBJECTIVES: Bebtelovimab is an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody active against Omicron lineage variants authorized to treat high-risk outpatients with COVID-19. We sought to determine the real-world effectiveness of bebtelovimab during the Omicron phases BA.2/BA2.12.1/BA4/BA5. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between April 6 and October 11, 2022, using health records linked to vaccine and mortality data. We used propensity scores to match of bebtelovimab-treated with untreated outpatients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, 28-day all-cause mortality, 28-day emergency department visits, maximum respiratory support level, intensive care unit admission, and in-hospital mortality among hospitalized patients. We used logistic regression to determine bebtelovimab treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: Among 22,720 patients with SARS-COV-2 infection, 3739 bebtelovimab-treated patients were matched to 5423 untreated patients. Compared with no treatment, bebtelovimab was associated with lower odds of 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs 2.1%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.74, P <0.001), as well as COVID-19-related hospitalization (1.0% vs 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.44 [95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.64], P <0.001). Bebtelovimab appeared to be more beneficial in lowering the odds of hospitalization among patients with two or more comorbidities (interaction P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant phase, bebtelovimab was associated with lower hospitalization.

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

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether sotrovimab, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment authorized for early symptomatic COVID-19 patients, is also effective in preventing the progression of severe disease and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infection. METHODS: Observational cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from October 1st 2021 - December 11th 2021, using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. We used propensity matching to select 3 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received outpatient sotrovimab treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and severity of hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 10,036 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 522 receiving sotrovimab were matched to 1,563 not receiving mAbs. Compared to mAb-untreated patients, sotrovimab treatment was associated with a 63% decrease in the odds of all-cause hospitalization (raw rate 2.1% versus 5.7%; adjusted OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.66) and an 89% decrease in the odds of all-cause 28-day mortality (raw rate 0% versus 1.0%; adjusted OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.0-0.79), and may reduce respiratory disease severity among those hospitalized. CONCLUSION: Real-world evidence demonstrated sotrovimab effectiveness in reducing hospitalization and all-cause 28-day mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Delta variant phase.

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

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

Change in Effectiveness of Sotrovimab for Preventing Hospitalization and Mortality for At-risk COVID-19 Outpatients During an Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1-Predominant Phase.

OBJECTIVES: Sotrovimab effectively prevented progression to severe disease and mortality following infection with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. We sought to determine whether sotrovimab is similarly effective against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. METHODS: Observational cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from December 26, 2021 to March 10, 2022, using electronic health records from a statewide health system. We propensity matching patients not receiving authorized treatment for each patient treated with sotrovimab. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality. We also propensity matched sotrovimab-treated patients from the Omicron and Delta phases. Logistic regression was used to determine sotrovimab effectiveness during Omicron and between variant phases. RESULTS: Of 30,247 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infected outpatients, we matched 1,542 receiving sotrovimab to 3,663 not receiving treatment. Sotrovimab treatment was not associated with reduced odds of 28-day hospitalization (2.5% versus 3.2%; adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55, 1.19) or mortality (0.1% versus 0.2%; adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.07, 2.78). Between phases, the observed treatment odds ratio was higher during Omicron than during Delta (OR 0.85 vs. 0.39, respectively; interaction p=0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence demonstrated sotrovimab was not associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization or mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Omicron BA.1 phase.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in outpatients with COVID-19 during the era of omicron variants including BA.4 and BA.5 in Colorado, USA: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is a protease inhibitor with in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir can reduce the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among individuals at high risk infected with delta and early omicron variants. However, less is known about the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir during more recent BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron variant surges. We used our real-world data platform to evaluate the effect of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment on 28-day hospitalisation, mortality, and emergency department visits among outpatients with early symptomatic COVID-19 during a SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) predominant period in Colorado, USA. METHODS: We did a propensity-matched, retrospective, observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, using records from a statewide health system in Colorado. We obtained data from the electronic health records of University of Colorado Health, the largest health system in Colorado, with 13 hospitals and 141 000 annual hospital admissions, and with numerous ambulatory sites and affiliated pharmacies around the state. Included patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir medication order. Exclusion criteria were an order for or administration of other SARS-CoV-2 treatments within 10 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospitalisation at the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than 10 days before a nirmatrelvir-ritonavir order. We propensity score matched patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with untreated patients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Among 28 167 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, 21 493 met the study inclusion criteria. 9881 patients received treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 11 612 were untreated. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation compared with no antiviral treatment (61 [0·9%] of 7168 patients vs 135 [1·4%] of 9361 patients, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·45 [95% CI 0·33-0·62]; p<0·0001). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was also associated with reduced 28-day all-cause mortality (two [<0·1%] of 7168 patients vs 15 [0·2%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·03-0·50]; p=0·0010). Using subsequent emergency department visits as a surrogate for clinically significant relapse, we observed a decrease after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (283 [3·9%] of 7168 patients vs 437 [4·7%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·74 [95% CI 0·63-0·87]; p=0·0002). INTERPRETATION: Real-world evidence reported during a BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron surge showed an association between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment and reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and visits to the emergency department. With results that are among the first to suggest effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for non-hospitalised patients during an omicron period inclusive of BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, these data support nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an ongoing first-line treatment for adults acutely infected with SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Referrals, access, and equity of monoclonal antibodies for outpatient COVID-19: A qualitative study of clinician perspectives.

Neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatments for non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been available since November 2020. However, they have been underutilized and access has been inequitable. To understand, from the clinician perspective, the factors facilitating or hindering monoclonal antibody referrals, patient access, and equity to inform development of clinician-focused messages, materials, and processes for improving access to therapeutics for COVID-19 in Colorado. We interviewed 38 frontline clinicians with experience caring for patients with COVID-19 in outpatient settings. Clinicians were purposely sampled for diversity to understand perspectives across geography (i.e., urban versus rural), practice setting, specialty, and self-reported knowledge about monoclonal antibodies. Interviews were conducted between June and September 2021, lasted 21 to 62 minutes, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were then analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis to identify thematic content and to compare themes across practice settings and other variables. Clinicians perceived monoclonal antibodies to be highly effective and were unconcerned about their emergency use status; hence, these factors were not perceived to hinder patient referrals. However, some barriers to access - including complex and changing logistics for referring, as well as the time and facilities needed for an infusion - inhibited widespread use. Clinicians in small, independent, and rural practices experienced unique challenges, such as lack of awareness of their patients' COVID-19 test results, disconnect from treatment distribution systems, and patients who faced long travel times to obtain treatment. Many clinicians held a persistent belief that monoclonal antibodies were in short supply; this belief hindered referrals, even when monoclonal antibody doses were not scarce. Across practice settings, the most important facilitator for access to monoclonal antibodies was linkage of COVID-19 testing and treatment within care delivery. Although clinicians viewed monoclonal antibodies as safe and effective treatments for COVID-19, individual- and system-level barriers inhibited referrals, particular in some practice settings. Subcutaneous or oral formulations may overcome certain barriers to access, but simplifying patient access by linking testing with delivery of treatments that reduce morbidity and mortality will be critical for the ongoing response to COVID-19 and in future pandemics.

"All of the things to everyone everywhere": A mixed methods analysis of community perspectives on equitable access to monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 prevents hospitalization and death but is underused, especially in racial/ethnic minority and rural populations. Reasons for underuse and inequity may include community member lack of awareness or healthcare access barriers, among others. This study assessed mAbs community awareness and opportunities for improving equitable mAb access. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods study including surveys and focus groups with adults with high-risk conditions or their proxy decision-makers. Surveys and focus group guides addressed diffusion of innovation theory factors. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact method was used to report and compare survey findings by race and ethnicity. Rapid qualitative methods were used for focus group analysis. RESULTS: Surveys from 515 individuals (460 English, 54 Spanish, 1 Amharic), and 8 focus groups (6 English, 2 Spanish) with 69 participants, completed June 2021 to January 2022. Most survey respondents (75%) had heard little or nothing about mAbs, but 95% would consider getting mAb treatment. Hispanic/Latino and Non-Hispanic People of Color (POC) reported less awareness, greater concern about intravenous infusions, and less trust in mAb safety and effectiveness than White, Non-Hispanic respondents. Focus group themes included little awareness but high interest in mAb treatment and concerns about cost and access barriers such as lacking established sources of care and travel from rural communities. Focus groups revealed preferences for broad-reaching but tailored messaging strategies using multiple media and trusted community leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Despite unfamiliarity with mAb treatment, most respondents were open to receiving mAbs or recommending mAbs to others. While mAb messaging should have broad reach "to everyone everywhere," racial and geographic disparities in awareness and trust about mAbs underscore need for tailored messaging to promote equitable access. Care processes should address patient-level barriers like transportation, insurance, or primary care access. COVID-19 treatment dissemination strategies should promote health equity.

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

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

Uncertainty, scarcity and transparency: Public health ethics and risk communication in a pandemic.

Communicating public health guidance is key to mitigating risk during disasters and outbreaks, and ethical guidance on communication emphasizes being fully transparent. Yet, communication during the pandemic has sometimes been fraught, due in part to practical and conceptual challenges around being transparent. A particular challenge has arisen when there was both evolving scientific knowledge on COVID-19 and reticence to acknowledge that resource scarcity concerns were influencing public health recommendations. This essay uses the example of communicating public health guidance on masking in the United States to illustrate ethical challenges of developing and conveying public health guidance under twin conditions of uncertainty and resource scarcity. Such situations require balancing two key principles in public health ethics: the precautionary principle and harm reduction. Transparency remains a bedrock value to guide risk communication, but optimizing transparency requires consideration of additional ethical values in developing and implementing risk communication strategies.

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

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

Treating Workers as Essential Too: An Ethical Framework for Public Health Interventions to Prevent and Control COVID-19 Infections among Meat-processing Facility Workers and Their Communities in the United States.

Meat is a multi-billion-dollar industry that relies on people performing risky physical work inside meat-processing facilities over long shifts in close proximity. These workers are socially disempowered, and many are members of groups beset by historic and ongoing structural discrimination. The combination of working conditions and worker characteristics facilitate the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Workers have been expected to put their health and lives at risk during the pandemic because of government and industry pressures to keep this "essential industry" producing. Numerous interventions can significantly reduce the risks to workers and their communities; however, the industry's implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent. With a focus on the U.S. context, this paper offers an ethical framework for infection prevention and control recommendations grounded in public health values of health and safety, interdependence and solidarity, and health equity and justice, with particular attention to considerations of reciprocity, equitable burden sharing, harm reduction, and health promotion. Meat-processing workers are owed an approach that protects their health relative to the risks of harms to them, their families, and their communities. Sacrifices from businesses benefitting financially from essential industry status are ethically warranted and should acknowledge the risks assumed by workers in the context of existing structural inequities.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES, LYING, AND DISPARITIES IN PATIENT OUTCOMES

Michael J. Sacopulos, host of AAPL's SoundPractice podcast, talks with Matthew K. Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP about a range of ethical issues in medical practice during a pandemic. There are already books being written about it, looking at what the factors were that caused folks in the federal government not to respond in the way that we sort of assumed the federal government would respond in the event of a disaster of this magnitude, a catastrophic global pandemic. [...]I sense that there was a sort of ideological and a political agenda at play here, which was that the federal government should step aside as much as possible and let states manage this. Vaccination was put into that same bucket in 1906 by the Supreme Court, and it has been upheld repeatedly, including very recently in the Houston Methodist decision, which allows for vaccination mandates in hospitals.

Crisis Standards of Care-More Than Just a Thought Experiment?

As described in two articles in the September-October 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report, most crisis standards of care (CSC) plans include triage algorithms to guide the allocation of critical care resources to some patients and not others under conditions of extreme scarcity. The plans also include other important CSC strategies, but it is the notion of rationing scarce resources via triage that especially captured the imaginations of ethicists. Vigorous arguments have arisen over whether triage algorithms should be designed to prioritize patients based on predictions of short-, near-, or long-term survival. Additionally, there are ongoing debates about the ability of current algorithms to estimate patient survival accurately enough to be useful in triage and about the role of values like equity in triage protocols. Relatively few debates have noted, however, that while the development of CSC triage protocols has been based in medicine, public health, and ethics, the activation of CSC plans remains a political decision.

A National Framework to Improve Mortality, Morbidity, and Disparities Data for COVID-19 and Other Large-Scale Disasters.

Timely and accurate data on COVID-19 cases and COVID-19‒related deaths are essential for making decisions with significant health, economic, and policy implications. A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine proposes a uniform national framework for data collection to more accurately quantify disaster-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. This article describes how following the report's recommendations could help improve the quality and timeliness of public health surveillance data during pandemics, with special attention to addressing gaps in the data necessary to understand pandemic-related health disparities.

Real-time electronic health record mortality prediction during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To rapidly develop, validate, and implement a novel real-time mortality score for the COVID-19 pandemic that improves upon sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) for decision support for a Crisis Standards of Care team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed, verified, and deployed a stacked generalization model to predict mortality using data available in the electronic health record (EHR) by combining 5 previously validated scores and additional novel variables reported to be associated with COVID-19-specific mortality. We verified the model with prospectively collected data from 12 hospitals in Colorado between March 2020 and July 2020. We compared the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) for the new model to the SOFA score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: The prospective cohort included 27 296 encounters, of which 1358 (5.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, 4494 (16.5%) required intensive care unit care, 1480 (5.4%) required mechanical ventilation, and 717 (2.6%) ended in death. The Charlson Comorbidity Index and SOFA scores predicted mortality with an AUROC of 0.72 and 0.90, respectively. Our novel score predicted mortality with AUROC 0.94. In the subset of patients with COVID-19, the stacked model predicted mortality with AUROC 0.90, whereas SOFA had AUROC of 0.85. DISCUSSION: Stacked regression allows a flexible, updatable, live-implementable, ethically defensible predictive analytics tool for decision support that begins with validated models and includes only novel information that improves prediction. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated an accurate in-hospital mortality prediction score in a live EHR for automatic and continuous calculation using a novel model that improved upon SOFA.