Advancing clinical trials in nursing homes: A proposed roadmap to success.

An effective clinical research effort in nursing homes to address prevention and treatment of COVID-19 faced overwhelming challenges. Under the Health Care Systems Research Network-Older Americans Independence Centers AGING Initiative, a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to develop recommendations to improve the capability of the clinical research enterprise in US nursing homes. The Panel considered the nursing home as a setting for clinical trials, reviewed the current state of clinical trials in nursing homes, and ultimately developed recommendations for the establishment of a nursing home clinical trials research network that would be centrally supported and administered. This report summarizes the Panel's recommendations, which were developed in alignment with the following core principles: build on available research infrastructure where appropriate; leverage existing productive partnerships of researchers with groups of nursing homes and nursing home corporations; encompass both efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials; be responsive to a broad range of stakeholders including nursing home residents and their care partners; be relevant to an expansive range of clinical and health care delivery research questions; be able to pivot as necessary to changing research priorities and circumstances; create a pathway for industry-sponsored research as appropriate; invest in strategies to increase diversity in study populations and the research workforce; and foster the development of the next generation of nursing home researchers.

Impact of deprescribing AChEIs on aggressive behaviors and antipsychotic prescribing.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of deprescribing acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) on aggressive behaviors and incident antipsychotic use in nursing home (NH) residents with severe dementia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of Medicare claims, Part D, Minimum Data Set for NH residents aged 65+ with severe dementia receiving AChEIs in 2016. Aggressive behaviors were measured using the aggressive behavior scale (ABS; n = 30,788). Incident antipsychotic prescriptions were evaluated among antipsychotic non-users (n = 25,188). Marginal structural models and inverse probability of treatment weights were used to evaluate associations of AChEI deprescribing and outcomes. RESULTS: The severity of aggressive behaviors was low at baseline (mean ABS = 0.5) and was not associated with deprescribing AChEIs (0.002 increase in ABS, P = .90). Incident antipsychotic prescribing occurred in 5.1% of residents and was less likely with AChEI deprescribing (adjusted odds ratio = 0.52 [0.40-0.68], P <.001]). DISCUSSION: Deprescribing AChEIs was not associated with a worsening of aggressive behaviors or incident antipsychotic prescriptions.

Randomized, controlled trial of high-dose influenza vaccine among frail residents of long-term care facilities.

BACKGROUND: Despite vaccination, residents of long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) remain at high risk of influenza-related morbidity and mortality. More-effective vaccine options for this population are needed. METHODS: We conducted a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial comparing high-dose (HD) to standard-dose (SD) inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in 205 frail, elderly residents of LTCFs during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 influenza seasons. Hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titers were measured at baseline and 30 and 180 days following vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 187 subjects (91%) completed the study. The mean age was 86.7 years. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) were significantly higher (P < .05) at day 30 for HD recipients, compared with SD recipients, for all comparisons except influenza A(H1N1) during 2012-2013 (the HD formulation was noninferior to the SD formulation for influenza A[H1N1] during 2012-2013). GMTs for HD and SD recipients during 2011-2012 were as follows: influenza A(H1N1), 78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 45-136) and 27 (95% CI, 17-44), respectively; influenza A(H3N2), 26 (95% CI, 17-40) and 10 (95% CI, 7-15), respectively; and influenza B, 26 (95% CI, 19-35) and 14 (95% CI, 11-18), respectively. During 2012-2013, GMTs for HD and SD recipients were as follows: influenza A(H1N1), 46 (95% CI, 33-63) and 50 (95% CI, 37-67); influenza A(H3N2), 23 (95% CI, 18-31) and 14 (95% CI, 11-18), respectively; and influenza B, 26 (95% CI, 21-32) and 17 (95% CI, 14-22), respectively. GMTs were significantly higher at day 180 for HD recipients, compared with SD recipients, for influenza A(H3N2) in both years (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among frail, elderly residents of LTCFs, HD influenza vaccine produced superior responses for all strains except influenza A(H1N1) in 2012-2013. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01654224.

Subsidized Versus Unsubsidized Senior Housing Communities in PA: A Window on Variation in Health, Function, and Access to Services in Old Age.

Introduction: Independent Living residences for older adults can be divided into two categories and require better definitions for research purposes; the purpose of this manuscript is to provide those definitions and explore variation in provided services and resident characteristics: (a) Subsidized age-based housing (55+) (Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing units for low-income adults), and (b) non-subsidized age-based housing. Methods: Residents in the two settings were compared: 37 subsidized locations (p = 289 residents) and 19 non-subsidized (p = 208). Aging support services in each housing type were quantified. Results: Subsidized residents are more likely to be female (84.6% vs. 70.2%, p = .0002) and have fair-poor health (36.5% vs. 12.5%, p < .0001), frequent pain (28.4% vs. 12.8%, p < .0001), and fair-poor mobility (37.5% vs. 23.5%, p = .0298). Non-subsidized locations are more likely to offer support services; on average, residents are older (mean age 83vs. 75; p < .0001) and white (97.6% vs. 69.2%, p < .0001). Conclusion: Significant differences exist between populations living in subsidized and non-subsidized housing, suggesting the effect of cumulative disadvantage over the lifespan; populations in poorer health have access to fewer services. Research is needed to explore generalizability on a national level.

Reliability of nonlocalizing signs and symptoms as indicators of the presence of infection in nursing-home residents.

Antibiotics are among the most common medications prescribed in nursing homes. The annual prevalence of antibiotic use in residents of nursing homes ranges from 47% to 79%, and more than half of antibiotic courses initiated in nursing-home settings are unnecessary or prescribed inappropriately (wrong drug, dose, or duration). Inappropriate antibiotic use is associated with a variety of negative consequences including Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), adverse drug effects, drug-drug interactions, and antimicrobial resistance. In response to this problem, public health authorities have called for efforts to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing in nursing homes.

Advancing Clinical Trials in Nursing Homes: A Proposed Roadmap to Success.

An effective clinical research effort in nursing homes to address prevention and treatment of COVID-19 faced overwhelming challenges. Under the Health Care Systems Research Network-Older Americans Independence Centers AGING Initiative, a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to develop recommendations to improve the capability of the clinical research enterprise in US nursing homes. The Panel considered the nursing home as a setting for clinical trials, reviewed the current state of clinical trials in nursing homes, and ultimately developed recommendations for the establishment of a nursing home clinical trials research network that would be centrally supported and administered. This report summarizes the Panel's recommendations, which were developed in alignment with the following core principles: build on available research infrastructure where appropriate; leverage existing productive partnerships of researchers with groups of nursing homes and nursing home corporations; encompass both efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials; be responsive to a broad range of stakeholders including nursing home residents and their care partners; be relevant to an expansive range of clinical and health care delivery research questions; be able to pivot as necessary to changing research priorities and circumstances; create a pathway for industry-sponsored research as appropriate; invest in strategies to increase diversity in study populations and the research workforce; and foster the development of the next generation of nursing home researchers.

Advancing Clinical Trials in Nursing Homes: A Proposed Roadmap to Success.

An effective clinical research effort in nursing homes to address prevention and treatment of COVID-19 faced overwhelming challenges. Under the Health Care Systems Research Network-Older Americans Independence Centers AGING Initiative, a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Advisory Panel was convened to develop recommendations to improve the capability of the clinical research enterprise in US nursing homes. The Panel considered the nursing home as a setting for clinical trials, reviewed the current state of clinical trials in nursing homes, and ultimately developed recommendations for the establishment of a nursing home clinical trials research network that would be centrally supported and administered. This report summarizes the Panel's recommendations, which were developed in alignment with the following core principles: build on available research infrastructure where appropriate; leverage existing productive partnerships of researchers with groups of nursing homes and nursing home corporations; encompass both efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials; be responsive to a broad range of stakeholders including nursing home residents and their care partners; be relevant to an expansive range of clinical and health care delivery research questions; be able to pivot as necessary to changing research priorities and circumstances; create a pathway for industry-sponsored research as appropriate; invest in strategies to increase diversity in study populations and the research workforce; and foster the development of the next generation of nursing home researchers.

Launching a comparative effectiveness adaptive platform trial of monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in 21 days.

Outpatient treatments that limit progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are of vital importance to optimise patient outcomes and public health. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) demonstrated ability to decrease hospitalizations in randomized, clinical trials. However, there are many barriers to mAb treatment such as patient access and clinician education. There are no data comparing efficacy or safety of available mAbs. We sought to rapidly launch an adaptive platform trial with the goals of enhancing access to treatment, regardless of geography and socioeconomic status, and evaluating comparative efficacy and safety of available mAbs. Within 21 days from idea genesis, we allocated mAb treatment to all patients within the context of this clinical trial. Within 2 months, we closed the gap of the likelihood of receiving mAb, conditional on background positivity rate, between Black and White patients (Black patients 0.238; White patients 0.241). We describe trial infrastructure, lessons learned, and future directions for a culture of learning while doing.

Multisociety statement on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination as a condition of employment for healthcare personnel.

This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab. METHODS: A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound. FINDINGS: Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria. Exposure: For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound. Results: A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

Improvements in Antibiotic Appropriateness for Cystitis in Older Nursing Home Residents: A Quality Improvement Study With Randomized Assignment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of an educational quality improvement initiative on the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing restricted to uncomplicated cystitis in older noncatheterized nursing home residents. DESIGN: Quality improvement study with randomized assignment. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five nursing homes in United States were randomized to the intervention or usual care group by strata that included state, urban/rural status, bed size, and geographic separation. METHODS: A 12-month trial of a low-intensity multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship intervention focused on uncomplicated cystitis in nursing home residents vs usual care. The outcome was the modified Medication Appropriateness Index as assessed by a blinded geriatric clinical pharmacist and consisted of an assessment of antibiotic effectiveness, dosage, drug-drug interactions, and duration. RESULTS: There were 75 cases (0.15/1000 resident days) in intervention and 92 (0.22/1000 resident days) in control groups with a probable cystitis per consensus guidelines. Compared with controls, there was a statistically nonsignificant 21% reduction in the risk of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (nonzero Medication Appropriateness Index score rate 0.13 vs 0.21/1000 person days; adjusted incident rate ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.45‒1.38). There was a favorable comparison in inappropriateness of duration (77% vs 89% for intervention vs control groups, respectively; P = .0394). However, the intervention group had more problems with drug-drug interactions than the control group (8% vs 1%, respectively; P = .0463). Similarly, the intervention group had a nonsignificant trend toward more problems with dosage (primarily because of the lack of adjustment for decreased renal function) than the control group (32% vs 25%, respectively; P = .3170). Both groups had similar rates of problems with choice/effectiveness (44% vs 45%; P = .9417). The most common class of antibiotics prescribed inappropriately was quinolones (25% vs 23% for intervention versus control groups, respectively; P = .7057). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: A low-intensity intervention showed a trend toward improved appropriate antibiotic prescribing in nursing home residents with likely uncomplicated cystitis. Efforts to improve antibiotic prescribing in addition to the low-intensity intervention might include a consultant pharmacist in a nursing home to identify inappropriate prescribing practices.

Establishing a Distribution Network for COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Across a Large Health System During a Global Pandemic.

Emergency authorized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can aid outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Many report barriers to adequate distribution and uptake. We present our model for distribution in a large health system as well as early lessons learned.

Antibody Responses After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in Residential Older Adults: Implications for Reopening.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 disproportionately impacts residents in long-term care facilities. Our objective was to quantify the presence and magnitude of antibody response in vaccinated, older adult residents at assisted living, personal care, and independent living communities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional quality improvement study was conducted March 15 - April 1, 2021 in the greater Pittsburgh region. SETTING AND POPULATION: Participants were older adult residents at assisted living, personal care, and independent living communities, who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Conditions that impair immune responses were exclusionary criteria. METHODS: Sera were collected to measure IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody level with reflex to total anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin levels, and blinded evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization titers. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients, and multiple linear regression analysis evaluated relationships between factors potentially associated with antibody levels. Spearman correlations were calculated between antibody levels and neutralization titers. RESULTS: All participants (N = 70) had received two rounds of vaccination and were found to have antibodies with wide variation in relative levels. Antibody levels trended lower in males, advanced age, current use of steroids, and longer length of time from vaccination. Pseudovirus neutralization titer levels were strongly correlated (P < .001) with Beckman Coulter antibody levels [D614 G NT50, rs = 0.91; B.1.1.7 (UK) NT50, rs = 0.91]. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Higher functioning, healthier, residential older adults mounted detectable antibody responses when vaccinated with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Data suggests some degree of immunity is present during the immediate period following vaccination. However, protective effects remain to be determined in larger studies as clinical protection is afforded by ongoing adaptive immunity, which is known to be decreased in older adults. This study provides important preliminary results on level of population risk in older adult residents at assisted living, personal care, and independent living communities to inform reopening strategies, but are not likely to be translatable for residents in nursing homes.

Transforming the Medication Regimen Review Process Using Telemedicine to Prevent Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Federally-mandated consultant pharmacist-conducted retrospective medication regimen reviews (MRRs) are designed to improve medication safety in nursing homes (NH). However, MRRs are potentially ineffective. A new model of care that improves access to and efficiency of consultant pharmacists is needed. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of pharmacist-led telemedicine services on reducing high-risk medication adverse drug events (ADEs) for NH residents using medication reconciliation and prospective MRR on admission plus ongoing clinical decision support alerts throughout the residents' stay. DESIGN: Quality improvement study using a stepped-wedge design comparing the novel service to usual care in a one-year evaluation from November 2016 to October 2017. SETTING: Four NHs (two urban, two suburban) in Southwestern Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: All residents in the four NHs were screened. There were 2,127 residents admitted having 652 alerts in the active period. INTERVENTION: Upon admission, pharmacists conducted medication reconciliation and prospective MRR for residents and also used telemedicine for communication with cognitively-intact residents. Post-admission, pharmacists received clinical decision support alerts to conduct targeted concurrent MRRs and telemedicine. MEASUREMENT: Main outcome was incidence of high-risk medication, alert-specific ADEs. Secondary outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, 30-day readmission rates, and consultant pharmacists' recommendations. RESULTS: Consultant pharmacists provided 769 recommendations. The intervention group had a 92% lower incidence of alert-specific ADEs than usual care (9 vs 31; 0.14 vs 0.61/1,000-resident-days; adjusted incident rate ratio (AIRR) = 0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.01-0.40]; P = .002). All-cause hospitalization was similar between groups (149 vs 138; 2.33 vs 2.70/1,000-resident-days; AIRR = 1.06 (95% CI = 0.72-1.58); P = .75), as were 30-day readmissions (110 vs 102; 1.72 vs 2.00/1,000-resident-days; AIRR = 1.21 (95% CI = 0.76-1.93); P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first evaluation of the impact of pharmacist-led patient-centered telemedicine services to manage high-risk medications during transitional care and throughout the resident's NH stay, supporting a new model of patient care.

Impact of Bamlanivimab Monoclonal Antibody Treatment on Hospitalization and Mortality Among Nonhospitalized Adults With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody treatment may prevent complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy on hospitalization and mortality among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications. METHODS: In this observational study we compared outpatients who received bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody from December 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 to nontreated patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction or antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the same period who were eligible for monoclonal antibody treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization or all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization. The risk-adjusted odds of study outcomes comparing bamlanivimab treated and untreated patients was determined using 1:5 propensity matching and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 232 patients receiving bamlanivimab matched with 1160 comparator patients, the mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and 196 (14%) of patients experienced hospitalization or mortality. After adjustment for propensity to receive treatment, bamlanivimab treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk-adjusted odds of hospitalization or mortality within 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.24-0.69; P < .001). Bamlanivimab treatment was also associated with a significantly lower risk adjusted odds of hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82; P = .004). The results were most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older. CONCLUSIONS: Bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy was associated with reduced hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.Use of bamlanivimab monotherapy for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection was associated with reductions in hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days. Benefit was strongest in those age 65 years or older.

The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. TRIAL DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization PARTICIPANTS: We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable - e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. RANDOMISATION: We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786 . Registered March 10, 2021 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Solving the COVID-19 Crisis in Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

Our nation's nursing home industry has been in need of overhaul for decades-a situation made all the more evident by COVID-19. AMDA-The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine is dedicated to quality in post-acute and long-term care process and outcomes. This special article presents 5 keys to solving the COVID-19 crisis in post-acute and long-term care, related to policy, collaboration, individualization, leadership, and reorganization. Taking action during this crisis may prevent sinking back into the complacency and habits of our pre-COVID-19 lives.

Effect of antibiotic time-outs on modification of antibiotic prescriptions in nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse and misuse is a common problem in nursing homes. Antibiotic time-out (ATO) interventions have led to improvements in antibiotic uses in hospitals, but their impact in nursing homes remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a stewardship intervention, promoting use of ATOs on the frequency and types of antibiotic change events (ACEs) in nursing homes. DESIGN: Controlled before-and-after intervention study. SETTING: Nursing homes in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. METHOD: Data on antibiotic prescriptions in 11 nursing homes were collected for 25 months. We categorized ACEs as (1) early discontinuation, (2) class modification, or (3) administration modification. Class modification ACEs were further classified based on whether the change narrowed, expanded, or had no effect on bacterial spectrum coverage. Analyses were performed using a difference-in-difference (DiD) approach. RESULT: Of 2,647 antibiotic events initiated in study nursing homes, 376 (14.2%) were associated with an ACE. The overall proportion of ACEs did not significantly differ between intervention and control nursing homes. Early discontinuation ACEs increased in intervention nursing homes (DiD, 2.5%; P = .01), primarily affecting residents initiated on broad-spectrum antibiotics (DiD, 2.9%; P < .01). Class modification ACEs decreased in intervention nursing homes but remained unchanged in control nursing homes. CONCLUSION: The impact of an ATO intervention in study nursing homes was mixed with increases in early discontinuation ACEs offset by reductions in class modification ACEs. More research on the potential value of ATO interventions in nursing homes is warranted.

Does Universal Testing for COVID-19 Work for Everyone?

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been especially devastating among nursing home residents, with both the health circumstances of individual residents as well as communal living settings contributing to increased morbidity and mortality. Preventing the spread of COVID-19 infection requires a multipronged approach that includes early identification of infected residents and health care personnel, compliance with infection prevention and control measures, cohorting infected residents, and furlough of infected staff. Strategies to address COVID-19 infections among nursing home residents vary based on the availability for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests, the incorporation of tests into broader surveillance efforts, and using results to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by identifying asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. We review the tests available to diagnose COVID-19 infections, the implications of universal testing for nursing home staff and residents, interpretation of test results, issues around repeat testing, and incorporation of test results as part of a long-term response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose a structured approach for facility-wide testing of residents and staff and provide alternatives if testing capacity is limited, emphasizing contact tracing. Nursing homes with strong screening protocols for residents and staff, that engage in contact tracing for new cases, and that continue to remain vigilant about infection prevent and control practices, may better serve their residents and staff by thoughtful use of symptom- and risk-based testing strategies.