Time to Sustained Recovery Among Outpatients With COVID-19 Receiving Montelukast vs Placebo: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial (Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines [ACTIV]-6) was conducted from January 27 through June 23, 2023, during the circulation of Omicron subvariants. Participants aged 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 2 or more acute COVID-19 symptoms for less than 7 days were included across 104 US sites. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive montelukast, 10 mg once daily, or matched placebo for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as ≥3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of health care utilization events (hospitalization, urgent care clinic visit, emergency department visit, or death); COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. A modified intention-to-treat approach was used for the analysis. Results: Among 1250 participants who were randomized and received the study drug or placebo, the median age was 53 years (IQR, 42-62 years), 753 (60.2%) were female, and 704 (56.3%) reported receiving 2 or more doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.92-1.12; P = .63 for efficacy). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% CI, 10-11 days) in both groups. No deaths occurred, and hospitalizations were reported for 2 participants (0.3%) in each group; the composite of health care utilization events was reported for 18 participants (2.9%) in the montelukast group and 18 (2.9%) in the placebo group (AHR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 0.45-1.84; P = .48 for efficacy). Five participants (0.4%) experienced serious adverse events (3 [0.5%] in the montelukast group and 2 [0.3%] in the placebo group). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast did not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. These findings do not support the use of montelukast for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Association Between Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Outcomes of Emergency Tracheal Intubation: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Trials.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between the neuromuscular blocking agent received (succinylcholine versus rocuronium) and the incidences of successful intubation on the first attempt and severe complications during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults in an emergency department (ED) or ICU. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from 2 multicenter randomized trials in critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an ED or ICU. Using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with prespecified baseline covariates, we examined the association between the neuromuscular blocking agent received (succinylcholine versus rocuronium) and the incidences of successful intubation on the first attempt (primary outcome) and severe complications during tracheal intubation (secondary outcome). RESULTS: Among the 2,440 patients in the trial data sets, 2,339 (95.9%) were included in the current analysis; 475 patients (20.3%) received succinylcholine and 1,864 patients (79.7%) received rocuronium. Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 375 patients (78.9%) who received succinylcholine and 1,510 patients (81.0%) who received rocuronium (an adjusted odds ratio of 0.87; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.15). Severe complications occurred in 67 patients (14.1%) who received succinylcholine and 456 patients (24.5%) who received rocuronium (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.26). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, the incidences of successful intubation on the first attempt and severe complications were not significantly different between patients who received succinylcholine and patients who received rocuronium.

Effectiveness of the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series against hospitalization for COVID-19-associated venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a strong risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 with VTE. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 sites between March 2021 and October 2022 with symptoms of acute respiratory illness were assessed for COVID-19, completion of the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series, and VTE. Prevalence of VTE was compared between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with COVID-19. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was calculated using a test negative design. Vaccine effectiveness was also stratified by predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant. RESULTS: Among 18,811 patients (median age 63 [IQR:50-73], 49% women, 59% non-Hispanic White, 20% non-Hispanic Black, 14% Hispanic, and median of 2 comorbid conditions [IQR:1-3]), 9,792 were admitted with COVID-19 (44% vaccinated) and 9,019 were test-negative controls (73% vaccinated). Among patients with COVID-19, 601 were diagnosed with VTE by hospital day 28, of whom 170 were vaccinated. VTE was more common among unvaccinated than vaccinated COVID-19 patients (7.8% versus 4.0%; p=0.001). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was 84% (95% CI: 80-87%) overall. Vaccine effectiveness stratified by predominant circulating variant was 88% (73-95%) for alpha, 93% (90-95%) for delta, and 68% (58-76%) for omicron variants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Vaccination with the original monovalent mRNA series was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE, though data detailing prior history of VTE and use of anticoagulation were not available. These findings will inform risk-benefit considerations for those considering vaccination.

Evaluation of the feasibility and efficacy of point-of-care antibody tests for biomarker guided management of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests. METHODS: COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome. RESULTS: While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard.

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

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

Association between multiple intubation attempts and complications during emergency department airway management: A national emergency airway registry study.

OBJECTIVE: Peri-intubation complications are important sequelae of airway management in the emergency department (ED). Our objective was to quantify the increased risk of complications with multiple attempts at emergency airway intubation in the ED. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospectively collected multicenter registry (National Emergency Airway Registry) consisting of attempted ED intubations among subjects aged >14 years. The primary exposure variable was the number of intubation attempts. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of peri-intubation major complications within 15 min of intubation including hypotension, hypoxemia, vomiting, dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest, esophageal intubation, and failed airway with cricothyrotomy. We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to determine the associations between complications and the number of intubation attempts while controlling for measured pre-exposure variables. RESULTS: There were 19,071 intubations in the NEAR database, of which 15,079 met inclusion for this analysis. Of these, 13,459 were successfully intubated on the first attempt, 1,268 on the second attempt, 269 on the third attempt, 61 on the fourth attempt, and 22 on the fifth or more attempt. A complication occurred in 2,137 encounters (14 %). Major complications accompanied 1,968 encounters (13 %) whereas minor complications affected 315 encounters (2 %). The most common major complication was hypoxia. In our multivariable logistic regression model, odds ratios with 95 % confidence intervals for the occurrence of major complications for multiple attempts compared to first-pass success were 4.4 (3.6-5.3), 7.4 (5.0-10.7), 13.9 (5.6-34.3), and 9.3 (2.1-41.7) for attempts 2-5+ (reference attempt 1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found an independent association between the number of intubation attempts among ED patients undergoing emergency airway intubation and the risk of complications.

Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB and BA.2.86/JN.1 Lineage Hospitalization and a Comparison of Clinical Severity-IVY Network, 26 Hospitals, October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024.

BACKGROUND: Assessing variant-specific COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as "JN lineages"), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages. METHODS: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated effectiveness of an updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression. RESULTS: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7-89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%-67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%-53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46-1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB.

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

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

Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB and BA.2.86/JN.1 Lineage Hospitalization and a Comparison of Clinical Severity - IVY Network, 26 Hospitals, October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024.

Background: Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity of SARS-CoV-2 variants can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as "JN lineages"), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial genomic divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages. Methods: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated the effectiveness of an updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression. Results: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7-89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%-67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%-53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46-1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations. Conclusions: Updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB lineage hospitalizations.

Acetaminophen for Prevention and Treatment of Organ Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The ASTER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has many pharmacological effects that might be beneficial in sepsis, including inhibition of cell-free hemoglobin-induced oxidation of lipids and other substrates. Objective: To determine whether acetaminophen increases days alive and free of organ dysfunction in sepsis compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted from October 2021 to April 2023 with 90-day follow-up. Adults with sepsis and respiratory or circulatory organ dysfunction were enrolled in the emergency department or intensive care unit of 40 US academic hospitals within 36 hours of presentation. Intervention: Patients were randomized to 1 g of acetaminophen intravenously every 6 hours or placebo for 5 days. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was days alive and free of organ support (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and kidney replacement therapy) to day 28. Treatment effect modification was evaluated for acetaminophen by prerandomization plasma cell-free hemoglobin level higher than 10 mg/dL. Results: Of 447 patients enrolled (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years, 51% female, mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 5.4 [SD, 2.5]), 227 were randomized to acetaminophen and 220 to placebo. Acetaminophen was safe with no difference in liver enzymes, hypotension, or fluid balance between treatment arms. Days alive and free of organ support to day 28 were not meaningfully different for acetaminophen (20.2 days; 95% CI, 18.8 to 21.6) vs placebo (19.6 days; 95% CI, 18.2 to 21.0; P = .56; difference, 0.6; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.6). Among 15 secondary outcomes, total, respiratory, and coagulation SOFA scores were significantly lower on days 2 through 4 in the acetaminophen arm as was the rate of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (2.2% vs 8.5% acetaminophen vs placebo; P = .01; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -10.8 to -1.8). There was no significant interaction between cell-free hemoglobin levels and acetaminophen. Conclusions and Relevance: Intravenous acetaminophen was safe but did not significantly improve days alive and free of organ support in critically ill sepsis patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04291508.

Effect of Montelukast vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposed medications in treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Between January 27, 2023, and June 23, 2023, 1250 participants ≥30 years of age with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days, were included across 104 US sites to evaluate the use of montelukast. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or matched placebo for 14 days. 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 clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell. Results: Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 53 years (IQR 42-62), 60.2% were female, 64.6% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 56.3% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.92-1.12; P(efficacy) = 0.63]). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% confidence interval 10-11) in both groups. No deaths were reported and 2 hospitalizations were reported in each group; 36 participants reported healthcare utilization events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 18 in the montelukast group compared with 18 in the placebo group (HR 1.01; 95% CrI 0.45-1.84; P(efficacy)=0.48). Five participants experienced serious adverse events (3 with montelukast and 2 with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Upstrapping to determine futility: predicting future outcomes nonparametrically from past data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials often involve some form of interim monitoring to determine futility before planned trial completion. While many options for interim monitoring exist (e.g., alpha-spending, conditional power), nonparametric based interim monitoring methods are also needed to account for more complex trial designs and analyses. The upstrap is one recently proposed nonparametric method that may be applied for interim monitoring. METHODS: Upstrapping is motivated by the case resampling bootstrap and involves repeatedly sampling with replacement from the interim data to simulate thousands of fully enrolled trials. The p-value is calculated for each upstrapped trial and the proportion of upstrapped trials for which the p-value criteria are met is compared with a pre-specified decision threshold. To evaluate the potential utility for upstrapping as a form of interim futility monitoring, we conducted a simulation study considering different sample sizes with several different proposed calibration strategies for the upstrap. We first compared trial rejection rates across a selection of threshold combinations to validate the upstrapping method. Then, we applied upstrapping methods to simulated clinical trial data, directly comparing their performance with more traditional alpha-spending and conditional power interim monitoring methods for futility. RESULTS: The method validation demonstrated that upstrapping is much more likely to find evidence of futility in the null scenario than the alternative across a variety of simulations settings. Our three proposed approaches for calibration of the upstrap had different strengths depending on the stopping rules used. Compared to O'Brien-Fleming group sequential methods, upstrapped approaches had type I error rates that differed by at most 1.7% and expected sample size was 2-22% lower in the null scenario, while in the alternative scenario power fluctuated between 15.7% lower and 0.2% higher and expected sample size was 0-15% lower. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept simulation study, we evaluated the potential for upstrapping as a resampling-based method for futility monitoring in clinical trials. The trade-offs in expected sample size, power, and type I error rate control indicate that the upstrap can be calibrated to implement futility monitoring with varying degrees of aggressiveness and that performance similarities can be identified relative to considered alpha-spending and conditional power futility monitoring methods.

Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus vs COVID-19 and Influenza Among Hospitalized US Adults.

Importance: On June 21, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older using shared clinical decision-making. Understanding the severity of RSV disease in adults can help guide this clinical decision-making. Objective: To describe disease severity among adults hospitalized with RSV and compare it with the severity of COVID-19 and influenza disease by vaccination status. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 US states from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Clinical data during each patient's hospitalization were collected using standardized forms. Data were analyzed from August to October 2023. Exposures: RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, severity of RSV disease was compared with COVID-19 and influenza severity, by COVID-19 and influenza vaccination status, for a range of clinical outcomes, including the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death. Results: Of 7998 adults (median [IQR] age, 67 [54-78] years; 4047 [50.6%] female) included, 484 (6.1%) were hospitalized with RSV, 6422 (80.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1092 (13.7%) were hospitalized with influenza. Among patients with RSV, 58 (12.0%) experienced IMV or death, compared with 201 of 1422 unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 (14.1%) and 458 of 5000 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (9.2%), as well as 72 of 699 unvaccinated patients with influenza (10.3%) and 20 of 393 vaccinated patients with influenza (5.1%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of IMV or in-hospital death were not significantly different among patients hospitalized with RSV and unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.13; P = .22) or influenza (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; P = .35); however, the odds of IMV or death were significantly higher among patients hospitalized with RSV compared with vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .03) or influenza disease (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.62-4.86; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized in this US cohort during the 16 months before the first RSV vaccine recommendations, RSV disease was less common but similar in severity compared with COVID-19 or influenza disease among unvaccinated patients and more severe than COVID-19 or influenza disease among vaccinated patients for the most serious outcomes of IMV or death.

A prospective, pragmatic non-inferiority study of emergency intubation success with the single-use i-view versus standard reusable video laryngoscope.

INTRODUCTION: Video laryngoscope (VL) technology improves first-pass success. The novel i-view VL device is inexpensive and disposable. We sought to determine the first-pass intubation success with the i-view VL device versus the standard reusable VL systems in routine use at each site. METHODS: We performed a prospective, pragmatic study at two major emergency departments (EDs) when VL was used. We rotated i-view versus reusable VL as the preferred device of the month based on an a priori schedule. An investigator-initiated interim analysis was performed. Our primary outcome was a first-pass success with a non-inferiority margin of 10% based on the per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: There were 93 intubations using the reusable VL devices and 81 intubations using the i-view. Our study was stopped early due to futility in reaching our predetermined non-inferiority margin. Operator and patient characteristics were similar between the two groups. The first-pass success rate for the i-view group was 69.1% compared to 84.3% for the reusable VL group. A non-inferiority analysis indicated that the difference (-15.1%) and corresponding 90% confidence limits (-25.3% to -5.0%) did not fall within the predetermined 10% non-inferiority margin. CONCLUSIONS: The i-view device failed to meet our predetermined non-inferiority margin when compared to the reusable VL systems with the study stopping early due to futility. Significant crossover occurred at the discretion of the intubating operator during the i-view month.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in COVID-19 outpatients during BQ.1, BQ.1.1., and XBB.1.5 predominant omicron variants in three U.S. health systems: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir (NMV-r), a protease inhibitor with in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, can reduce risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among high-risk individuals infected with earlier variants, but less is known about its effectiveness against omicron variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. We sought to evaluate effectiveness of NMV-r in BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 omicron variants by comparing hospitalisation rates to NMV-r treated patients during a previous omicron phase and to contemporaneous untreated patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-world data from three health systems in Colorado and Utah, and compared hospitalisation rates in NMV-r-treated patients in a BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant-predominant (first) phase (April 3, 2022-November 12, 2022), with a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 variant-predominant (second) phase (November 13, 2022-March 7, 2023). In the primary analysis, we used Firth logistic regression with a two-segment (phase) linear time model, and pre-specified non-inferiority bounds for the mean change between segments. In a pre-specified secondary analysis, we inferred NMV-r effectiveness in a cohort of treated and untreated patients infected during the second phase. For both analyses, the primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. Subgroup analyses assessed treatment effect heterogeneity. Findings: In the primary analysis, 28-day all-cause hospitalisation rates in NMV-r treated patients in the second phase (n = 12,061) were non-inferior compared to the first phase (n = 25,075) (198 [1.6%] vs. 345 [1.4%], adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.76 [95% CI 0.54-1.06]), with consistent results among secondary endpoints and key subgroups. Secondary cohort analyses revealed additional evidence for NMV-r effectiveness, with reduced 28-day hospitalisation rates among treated patients compared to untreated patients during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 predominant phase (198/12,061 [1.6%] vs. 376/10,031 [3.7%], aOR 0.34 [95% CI 0.30-0.38), findings robust to additional sensitivity analyses. Interpretation: Real-world evidence from major US healthcare systems suggests ongoing NMV-r effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5-predominant phase in the U.S, supporting its continued use in similar patient populations. Funding: U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Association between monoclonal antibody therapy, vaccination, and longer-term symptom resolution after acute COVID-19.

Effective therapies for reducing post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) symptoms are lacking. Evaluate the association between monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment or COVID-19 vaccination with symptom recovery in COVID-19 participants. The longitudinal survey-based cohort study was conducted from April 2021 to January 2022 across a multihospital Colorado health system. Adults ≥18 years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were included. Primary exposures were mAb treatment and COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome was time to symptom resolution after SARS-CoV-2 positive test date. The secondary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. COVID-19 vaccination, but not mAb therapy, was associated with a shorter time to symptom resolution. Both were associated with lower 28-day hospitalization.

Interventions associated with survival after prehospital intubation in the deployed combat setting.

INTRODUCTION: Airway compromise is the second leading cause of potentially preventable death on the battlefield. Prehospital airway management is often unavoidable in a kinetic combat environment and expected to increase in future wars where timely evacuation will be unreliable and air superiority not guaranteed. We compared characteristics of survivors to non-survivors among combat casualties undergoing prehospital airway intubation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We requested all Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) encounters during 2007-2023 with documentation of any airway intervention or assessment within the first 72-h after injury. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all casualties with intubation documented in the prehospital setting. We used descriptive and inferential statistical analysis to compare survivors through 7 days post injury versus non-survivors. We constructed 3 multivariable logistic regression models to test for associations between interventions and 7-day survival after adjusting for injury severity score, mechanism of injury, and receipt of sedatives, paralytics, and blood products. RESULTS: There were 1377 of 48,301 patients with documentation of prehospital intubation in a combat setting. Of these, 1028 (75%) survived through 7 days post injury. Higher proportions of survivors received ketamine, paralytic agents, parenteral opioids, and parenteral benzodiazepines; there was no difference in the proportions of survivors versus non-survivors receiving etomidate. The multivariable models consistently demonstrated positive associations between 7-day survival and receipt of non-depolarizing paralytics and opioid analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between non-depolarizing paralytic and opioid receipt with 7-day survival among patients undergoing prehospital intubation. The literature would benefit from future multi-center randomized controlled trials to establish optimal pharmacologic strategies for trauma patients undergoing prehospital intubation.

Viral and Host Factors Are Associated With Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Persistent mortality in adults hospitalized due to acute COVID-19 justifies pursuit of disease mechanisms and potential therapies. The aim was to evaluate which virus and host response factors were associated with mortality risk among participants in Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3) trials. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 2625 adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection randomized to 1 of 5 antiviral products or matched placebo in 114 centers on 4 continents. Uniform, site-level collection of participant baseline clinical variables was performed. Research laboratories assayed baseline upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and plasma for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (viral Ag), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Associations between factors and time to mortality by 90 days were assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Viral Ag ≥4500 ng/L (vs <200 ng/L; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.07; 1.29-3.34), viral RNA (<35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.42; 1.09-5.34], ≥35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.84; 1.29-6.28], vs below detection), respiratory support (<4 L O2 [aHR, 1.84; 1.06-3.22]; ≥4 L O2 [aHR, 4.41; 2.63-7.39], or noninvasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula [aHR, 11.30; 6.46-19.75] vs no oxygen), renal impairment (aHR, 1.77; 1.29-2.42), and IL-6 >5.8 ng/L (aHR, 2.54 [1.74-3.70] vs ≤5.8 ng/L) were significantly associated with mortality risk in final adjusted analyses. Viral Ag, viral RNA, and IL-6 were not measured in real-time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline virus-specific, clinical, and biological variables are strongly associated with mortality risk within 90 days, revealing potential pathogen and host-response therapeutic targets for acute COVID-19 disease.

Effectiveness of subcutaneous monoclonal antibody treatment in emergency department outpatients with COVID-19.

Objectives: To evaluate whether subcutaneous neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment given in the emergency department (ED) setting was associated with reduced hospitalizations, mortality, and severity of disease when compared to nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study of ED patients utilized a propensity score-matched analysis to compare patients who received subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab mAb to nontreated COVID-19 control patients in November-December 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 28 days, and secondary outcomes were 90-day hospitalization, 28- and 90-day mortality, and ED length of stay (LOS). Results: Of 1340 patients included in the analysis, 490 received subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab, and 850 did not received them. There was no difference observed for 28-day hospitalization (8.4% vs. 10.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.79, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.53-1.17) or 90-day hospitalization (11.6% vs. 12.5%; aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.31). However, mortality at both the 28-day and 90-day timepoints was substantially lower in the treated group (28-day 0.6% vs. 3.1%; aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.41; 90-day 0.6% vs. 3.9%; aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.36). Among hospitalized patients, treated patients had shorter hospital LOS (5.7 vs. 11.4 days; adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.69), shorter intensive care unit LOS (3.8 vs. 10.2 days; aRR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.35), and the severity of hospitalization was lower (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.97) compared to untreated. Conclusions: Among ED patients who presented for symptomatic COVID-19 during the Delta variant phase, ED subcutaneous casirivimab/imdevimab treatment was not associated with a decrease in hospitalizations. However, treatment was associated with lower mortality at 28 and 90 days, hospital LOS, and overall severity of illness.

Effect of high dose vitamin D supplementation on subsequent immune responses to administration of the live herpes zoster vaccine to long-term care residents.

Thirty-three long-term care residents (mean age 76.5 years), who were participating in a study in which they were randomized to receive either oral daily standard dose (400-1000 IU/day) 25-hydroxy vitamin D (vitamin D3) (SD) or high dose (3000-4000 IU/day) (HD) vitamin D3, were vaccinated with the live, attenuated herpes zoster vaccine. Blood was drawn at vaccination and three weeks later to determine varicella-zoster virus (VZV) antibody and T-cell mediated immune responses. ELISA and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly, but to the same extent, in both groups. The antibody avidity significantly increased from pre- to post-vaccination only in the HD group. VZV-CMI, as measured by FLUOROSPOT significantly increased post-vaccination in both groups, but the difference in interferon-γ spot-forming cells (SFC) and interleukin-2 SFC was lower in the HD than SD group. The increase in VZV-CMI correlated inversely with circulating regulatory T cells in the HD group. We conclude that pre-treatment with HD vitamin D3 does not appreciably enhance the antibody response to a live vaccine and that VZV-CMI responses were diminished in HD vitamin D3 recipients.