Favorable Antiviral Effect of Metformin on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viral Load in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Metformin has antiviral activity against RNA viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The mechanism appears to be suppression of protein translation via targeting the host mechanistic target of rapamycin pathway. In the COVID-OUT randomized trial for outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), metformin reduced the odds of hospitalizations/death through 28 days by 58%, of emergency department visits/hospitalizations/death through 14 days by 42%, and of long COVID through 10 months by 42%. METHODS: COVID-OUT was a 2 × 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that assessed metformin, fluvoxamine, and ivermectin; 999 participants self-collected anterior nasal swabs on day 1 (n = 945), day 5 (n = 871), and day 10 (n = 775). Viral load was quantified using reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: The mean SARS-CoV-2 viral load was reduced 3.6-fold with metformin relative to placebo (-0.56 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -.06; P = .027). Those who received metformin were less likely to have a detectable viral load than placebo at day 5 or day 10 (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, .55 to .94). Viral rebound, defined as a higher viral load at day 10 than day 5, was less frequent with metformin (3.28%) than placebo (5.95%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, .36 to 1.29). The metformin effect was consistent across subgroups and increased over time. Neither ivermectin nor fluvoxamine showed effect over placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial of outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2, metformin significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral load, which may explain the clinical benefits in this trial. Metformin is pleiotropic with other actions that are relevant to COVID-19 pathophysiology. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04510194.

Early Physician Gestalt Versus Usual Screening Tools for the Prediction of Sepsis in Critically Ill Emergency Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Compare physician gestalt to existing screening tools for identifying sepsis in the initial minutes of presentation when time-sensitive treatments must be initiated. METHODS: This prospective observational study conducted with consecutive encounter sampling took place in the emergency department (ED) of an academic, urban, safety net hospital between September 2020 and May 2022. The study population included ED patients who were critically ill, excluding traumas, transfers, and self-evident diagnoses. Emergency physician gestalt was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 at 15 and 60 minutes after patient arrival. The primary outcome was an explicit sepsis hospital discharge diagnosis. Clinical data were recorded for up to 3 hours to compare Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and a logistic regression machine learning model using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) for variable selection. The screening tools were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis and area under the curve calculation (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 2,484 patient-physician encounters involving 59 attending physicians were analyzed. Two hundred seventy-five patients (11%) received an explicit sepsis discharge diagnosis. When limited to available data at 15 minutes, initial VAS (AUC 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88, 0.92) outperformed all tools including LASSO (0.84; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.87), qSOFA (0.67; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.71), SIRS (0.67; 95% 0.64 to 0.70), SOFA (0.67; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.70), and MEWS (0.66; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.69). Expanding to data available at 60 minutes did not meaningfully change results. CONCLUSION: Among adults presenting to an ED with an undifferentiated critical illness, physician gestalt in the first 15 minutes of the encounter outperformed other screening methods in identifying sepsis.

Racial disparities in septic shock mortality: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Patients with septic shock have the highest risk of death from sepsis, however, racial disparities in mortality outcomes in this cohort have not been rigorously investigated. Our objective was to describe the association between race/ethnicity and mortality in patients with septic shock. Methods: Our study is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients in the OneFlorida Data Trust (Florida, United States of America) admitted with septic shock between January 2012 and July 2018. We identified patients as having septic shock if they received vasopressors during their hospital encounter and had either an explicit International Classification of Disease (ICD) code for sepsis, or had an infection ICD code and received intravenous antibiotics. Our primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Our secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multiple logistic regression with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) for variable selection was used to assess associations. Findings: There were 13,932 patients with septic shock in our cohort. The mean age was 61 years (SD 16), 68% of the cohort identified as White (n = 9419), 28% identified as Black (n = 3936), 2% (n = 294) identified as Hispanic ethnicity, and 2% as other races not specified in the previous groups (n = 283). In our logistic regression model for 90-day mortality, patients identified as Black had 1.57 times the odds of mortality (95% CI 1.07-2.29, p = 0.02) compared to White patients. Other significant predictors included mechanical ventilation (OR 3.66, 95% CI 3.35-4.00, p < 0.01), liver disease (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.59-1.93, p < 0.01), laboratory components of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.16-1.21, p < 0.01), lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08-1.12, p < 0.01), congestive heart failure (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30, p < 0.01), human immunodeficiency virus (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.75, p = 0.03), age (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.04, p < 0.01), and the interaction between age and race (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.01). Among younger patients (<45 years), patients identified as Black accounted for a higher proportion of the deaths. Results were similar in the in-hospital mortality model. Interpretation: In this retrospective study of septic shock patients, we found that patients identified as Black had higher odds of mortality compared to patients identified as non-Hispanic White. Our findings suggest that the greatest disparities in mortality are among younger Black patients with septic shock. Funding: National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (1KL2TR001429); National Institute of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1K23GM144802).

Strategies used for the COVID-OUT decentralized trial of outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the development of decentralized clinical trials (DCT). DCT's are an important and pragmatic method for assessing health outcomes yet comprise only a minority of clinical trials, and few published methodologies exist. In this report, we detail the operational components of COVID-OUT, a decentralized, multicenter, quadruple-blinded, randomized trial that rapidly delivered study drugs nation-wide. The trial examined three medications (metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine) as outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 for their effectiveness in preventing severe or long COVID-19. Decentralized strategies included HIPAA-compliant electronic screening and consenting, prepacking investigational product to accelerate delivery after randomization, and remotely confirming participant-reported outcomes. Of the 1417 individuals with the intention-to-treat sample, the remote nature of the study caused an additional 94 participants to not take any doses of study drug. Therefore, 1323 participants were in the modified intention-to-treat sample, which was the a priori primary study sample. Only 1.4% of participants were lost to follow-up. Decentralized strategies facilitated the successful completion of the COVID-OUT trial without any in-person contact by expediting intervention delivery, expanding trial access geographically, limiting contagion exposure, and making it easy for participants to complete follow-up visits. Remotely completed consent and follow-up facilitated enrollment.

Development of a proteomic signature associated with severe disease for patients with COVID-19 using data from 5 multicenter, randomized, controlled, and prospective studies.

Significant progress has been made in preventing severe COVID-19 disease through the development of vaccines. However, we still lack a validated baseline predictive biologic signature for the development of more severe disease in both outpatients and inpatients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to develop and externally validate, via 5 international outpatient and inpatient trials and/or prospective cohort studies, a novel baseline proteomic signature, which predicts the development of moderate or severe (vs mild) disease in patients with COVID-19 from a proteomic analysis of 7000 + proteins. The secondary objective was exploratory, to identify (1) individual baseline protein levels and/or (2) protein level changes within the first 2 weeks of acute infection that are associated with the development of moderate/severe (vs mild) disease. For model development, samples collected from 2 randomized controlled trials were used. Plasma was isolated and the SomaLogic SomaScan platform was used to characterize protein levels for 7301 proteins of interest for all studies. We dichotomized 113 patients as having mild or moderate/severe COVID-19 disease. An elastic net approach was used to develop a predictive proteomic signature. For validation, we applied our signature to data from three independent prospective biomarker studies. We found 4110 proteins measured at baseline that significantly differed between patients with mild COVID-19 and those with moderate/severe COVID-19 after adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing. Baseline protein expression was associated with predicted disease severity with an error rate of 4.7% (AUC = 0.964). We also found that five proteins (Afamin, I-309, NKG2A, PRS57, LIPK) and patient age serve as a signature that separates patients with mild COVID-19 and patients with moderate/severe COVID-19 with an error rate of 1.77% (AUC = 0.9804). This panel was validated using data from 3 external studies with AUCs of 0.764 (Harvard University), 0.696 (University of Colorado), and 0.893 (Karolinska Institutet). In this study we developed and externally validated a baseline COVID-19 proteomic signature associated with disease severity for potential use in both outpatients and inpatients with COVID-19.

Developing A Baseline Metabolomic Signature Associated with COVID-19 Severity: Insights from Prospective Trials Encompassing 13 U.S. Centers.

Metabolic disease is a significant risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection, but the contributing pathways are not yet fully elucidated. Using data from two randomized controlled trials across 13 U.S. academic centers, our goal was to characterize metabolic features that predict severe COVID-19 and define a novel baseline metabolomic signature. Individuals (n = 133) were dichotomized as having mild or moderate/severe COVID-19 disease based on the WHO ordinal scale. Blood samples were analyzed using the Biocrates platform, providing 630 targeted metabolites for analysis. Resampling techniques and machine learning models were used to determine metabolomic features associated with severe disease. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) was used for functional enrichment analysis. To aid in clinical decision making, we created baseline metabolomics signatures of low-correlated molecules. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to associate these signatures with severe disease on training data. A three-metabolite signature, lysophosphatidylcholine a C17:0, dihydroceramide (d18:0/24:1), and triacylglyceride (20:4_36:4), resulted in the best discrimination performance with an average test AUROC of 0.978 and F1 score of 0.942. Pathways related to amino acids were significantly enriched from the IPA analyses, and the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 5 (MAP2K5) was differentially activated between groups. In conclusion, metabolites related to lipid metabolism efficiently discriminated between mild vs. moderate/severe disease. SDMA and GABA demonstrated the potential to discriminate between these two groups as well. The mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 5 (MAP2K5) regulator is differentially activated between groups, suggesting further investigation as a potential therapeutic pathway.

Kidney function as a key driver of the pharmacokinetic response to high-dose L-carnitine in septic shock.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Levocarnitine (L-carnitine) has shown promise as a metabolic-therapeutic for septic shock, where mortality approaches 40%. However, high-dose (≥ 6 grams) intravenous supplementation results in a broad range of serum concentrations. We sought to describe the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of high-dose L-carnitine, test various estimates of kidney function, and assess the correlation of PK parameters with pre-treatment metabolites in describing drug response for patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Population PK analysis was done with baseline normalized concentrations using nonlinear mixed effect models in the modeling platform Monolix. Various estimates of kidney function, patient demographics, dose received, and organ dysfunction were tested as population covariates. DATA SOURCE: We leveraged serum samples and metabolomics data from a phase II trial of L-carnitine in vasopressor-dependent septic shock. Serum was collected at baseline (T0); end-of-infusion (T12); and 24, 48, and 72 h after treatment initiation. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Patients were adaptively randomized to receive intravenous L-carnitine (6 grams, 12 grams, or 18 grams) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final dataset included 542 serum samples from 130 patients randomized to L-carnitine. A two-compartment model with linear elimination and a fixed volume of distribution (17.1 liters) best described the data and served as a base structural model. Kidney function estimates as a covariate on the elimination rate constant (k) reliably improved model fit. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), based on the 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation with creatinine and cystatin C, outperformed creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) and older CKD-EPI equations that use an adjustment for self-identified race. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose L-carnitine supplementation is well-described by a two-compartment population PK model in patients with septic shock. Kidney function estimates that leverage cystatin C provided superior model fit. Future investigations into high-dose L-carnitine supplementation should consider baseline metabolic status and dose adjustments based on renal function over a fixed or weight-based dosing paradigm.

Rapid identification of sepsis in the emergency department.

Objectives: Recent research has helped define the complex pathways in sepsis, affording new opportunities for advancing diagnostics tests. Given significant advances in the field, a group of academic investigators from emergency medicine, intensive care, pathology, and pharmacology assembled to develop consensus around key gaps and potential future use for emerging rapid host response diagnostics assays in the emergency department (ED) setting. Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted that included 26 panelists (expert consensus panel) from multiple specialties. A smaller steering committee first defined a list of Delphi statements related to the need for and future potential use of a hypothetical sepsis diagnostic test in the ED. Likert scoring was used to assess panelists agreement or disagreement with statements. Two successive rounds of surveys were conducted and consensus for statements was operationally defined as achieving agreement or disagreement of 75% or greater. Results: Significant gaps were identified related to current tools for assessing risk of sepsis in the ED. Strong consensus indicated the need for a test providing an indication of the severity of dysregulated host immune response, which would be helpful even if it did not identify the specific pathogen. Although there was a relatively high degree of uncertainty regarding which patients would most benefit from the test, the panel agreed that an ideal host response sepsis test should aim to be integrated into ED triage and thus should produce results in less than 30 minutes. The panel also agreed that such a test would be most valuable for improving sepsis outcomes and reducing rates of unnecessary antibiotic use. Conclusion: The expert consensus panel expressed strong consensus regarding gaps in sepsis diagnostics in the ED and the potential for new rapid host response tests to help fill these gaps. These finding provide a baseline framework for assessing key attributes of evolving host response diagnostic tests for sepsis in the ED.

Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Metformin reduces SARS-CoV-2 in a Phase 3 Randomized Placebo Controlled Clinical Trial.

Current antiviral treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infections are not available globally, cannot be used with many medications, and are limited to virus-specific targets.1-3 Biophysical modeling of SARS-CoV-2 replication predicted that protein translation is an especially attractive target for antiviral therapy.4 Literature review identified metformin, widely known as a treatment for diabetes, as a potential suppressor of protein translation via targeting of the host mTor pathway.5 In vitro, metformin has antiviral activity against RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-2.6,7 In the COVID-OUT phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of outpatient treatment of COVID-19, metformin had a 42% reduction in ER visits/hospitalizations/death through 14 days; a 58% reduction in hospitalizations/death through 28 days, and a 42% reduction in Long COVID through 10 months.8,9 Here we show viral load analysis of specimens collected in the COVID-OUT trial that the mean SARS-CoV-2 viral load was reduced 3.6-fold with metformin relative to placebo (-0.56 log10 copies/mL; 95%CI, -1.05 to -0.06, p=0.027) while there was no virologic effect for ivermectin or fluvoxamine vs placebo. The metformin effect was consistent across subgroups and with emerging data.10,11 Our results demonstrate, consistent with model predictions, that a safe, widely available,12 well-tolerated, and inexpensive oral medication, metformin, can be repurposed to significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load.

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 and incidence of post-COVID-19 condition over 10 months (COVID-OUT): a multicentre, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is an emerging chronic illness potentially affecting millions of people. We aimed to evaluate whether outpatient COVID-19 treatment with metformin, ivermectin, or fluvoxamine soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of long COVID. METHODS: We conducted a decentralised, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (COVID-OUT) at six sites in the USA. We included adults aged 30-85 years with overweight or obesity who had COVID-19 symptoms for fewer than 7 days and a documented SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or antigen test within 3 days before enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned via 2 × 3 parallel factorial randomisation (1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive metformin plus ivermectin, metformin plus fluvoxamine, metformin plus placebo, ivermectin plus placebo, fluvoxamine plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo. Participants, investigators, care providers, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was severe COVID-19 by day 14, and those data have been published previously. Because the trial was delivered remotely nationwide, the a priori primary sample was a modified intention-to-treat sample, meaning that participants who did not receive any dose of study treatment were excluded. Long COVID diagnosis by a medical provider was a prespecified, long-term secondary outcome. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510194. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2020, and Jan 28, 2022, 6602 people were assessed for eligibility and 1431 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Of 1323 participants who received a dose of study treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 1126 consented for long-term follow-up and completed at least one survey after the assessment for long COVID at day 180 (564 received metformin and 562 received matched placebo; a subset of participants in the metformin vs placebo trial were also randomly assigned to receive ivermectin or fluvoxamine). 1074 (95%) of 1126 participants completed at least 9 months of follow-up. 632 (56·1%) of 1126 participants were female and 494 (43·9%) were male; 44 (7·0%) of 632 women were pregnant. The median age was 45 years (IQR 37-54) and median BMI was 29·8 kg/m2 (IQR 27·0-34·2). Overall, 93 (8·3%) of 1126 participants reported receipt of a long COVID diagnosis by day 300. The cumulative incidence of long COVID by day 300 was 6·3% (95% CI 4·2-8·2) in participants who received metformin and 10·4% (7·8-12·9) in those who received identical metformin placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·39-0·89; p=0·012). The metformin beneficial effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups. When metformin was started within 3 days of symptom onset, the HR was 0·37 (95% CI 0·15-0·95). There was no effect on cumulative incidence of long COVID with ivermectin (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64) or fluvoxamine (1·36, 0·78-2·34) compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe. FUNDING: Parsemus Foundation; Rainwater Charitable Foundation; Fast Grants; UnitedHealth Group Foundation; National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Renin-Angiotensin System Modulation With Synthetic Angiotensin (1-7) and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor-Biased Ligand in Adults With COVID-19: Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Sustained Perturbation of Metabolism and Metabolic Subphenotypes Are Associated With Mortality and Protein Markers of the Host Response.

Perturbed host metabolism is increasingly recognized as a pillar of sepsis pathogenesis, yet the dynamic alterations in metabolism and its relationship to other components of the host response remain incompletely understood. We sought to identify the early host-metabolic response in patients with septic shock and to explore biophysiological phenotyping and differences in clinical outcomes among metabolic subgroups. DESIGN: We measured serum metabolites and proteins reflective of the host-immune and endothelial response in patients with septic shock. SETTING: We considered patients from the placebo arm of a completed phase II, randomized controlled trial conducted at 16 U.S. medical centers. Serum was collected at baseline (within 24 hr of the identification of septic shock), 24-hour, and 48-hour postenrollment. Linear mixed models were built to assess the early trajectory of protein analytes and metabolites stratified by 28-day mortality status. Unsupervised clustering of baseline metabolomics data was conducted to identify subgroups of patients. PATIENTS: Patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock and moderate organ dysfunction that were enrolled in the placebo arm of a clinical trial. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-one metabolites and 10 protein analytes were measured longitudinally in 72 patients with septic shock. In the 30 patients (41.7%) who died prior to 28 days, systemic concentrations of acylcarnitines and interleukin (IL)-8 were elevated at baseline and persisted at T24 and T48 throughout early resuscitation. Concentrations of pyruvate, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and angiopoietin-2 decreased at a slower rate in patients who died. Two groups emerged from clustering of baseline metabolites. Group 1 was characterized by higher levels of acylcarnitines, greater organ dysfunction at baseline and postresuscitation (p < 0.05), and greater mortality over 1 year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock, nonsurvivors exhibited a more profound and persistent dysregulation in protein analytes attributable to neutrophil activation and disruption of mitochondrial-related metabolism than survivors.

Recall of Awareness During Paralysis Among ED Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients sometimes remember periods of neuromuscular blockade. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prevalence of recalled awareness during paralysis in patients who underwent emergency tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation, and what clinical variables are associated with this outcome? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study analyzed data from a prospectively collected continuous quality improvement database of emergency tracheal intubation in an urban, county hospital. Patients who received a neuromuscular blocking agent to facilitate emergency tracheal intubation in the ED were included. The database contained details of intubation management, including medications received and patient mental status prior to intubation. Patient recall of awareness of paralysis was assessed by trained staff during an in-person interview following extubation using a modified Brice questionnaire. For this analysis, three expert reviewers used these data to adjudicate whether patients may have had awareness of paralysis, the primary outcome. A logistic regression model was constructed to determine whether clinical variables were associated with the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were analyzed. There were 66 patients (7.4%; 95% CI, 5.8-9.4) determined to possibly (61 patients) or definitely (5 patients) have experienced and recalled awareness of paralysis. A logistic regression model revealed that a decreased level of consciousness prior to intubation was associated with lower odds of awareness (adjusted OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69), whereas the class of neuromuscular blocking agent used, sedative used, preintubation shock index, and postintubation sedation were not significantly associated with recall of this outcome. INTERPRETATION: Among patients intubated emergently using a neuromuscular blocking agent, 7.4% of patients recalled awareness without being able to move, which was more likely when patients had a normal level of consciousness prior to intubation.

Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccination and Booster on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Symptom Severity Over Time in the COVID-OUT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination has decreasing protection from acquiring any infection with emergence of new variants; however, vaccination continues to protect against progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The impact of vaccination status on symptoms over time is less clear. METHODS: Within a randomized trial on early outpatient COVID-19 therapy testing metformin, ivermectin, and/or fluvoxamine, participants recorded symptoms daily for 14 days. Participants were given a paper symptom diary allowing them to circle the severity of 14 symptoms as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3). This is a secondary analysis of clinical trial data on symptom severity over time using generalized estimating equations comparing those unvaccinated, SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated with primary vaccine series only, or vaccine-boosted. RESULTS: The parent clinical trial prospectively enrolled 1323 participants, of whom 1062 (80%) prospectively recorded some daily symptom data. Of these, 480 (45%) were unvaccinated, 530 (50%) were vaccinated with primary series only, and 52 (5%) vaccine-boosted. Overall symptom severity was least for the vaccine-boosted group and most severe for unvaccinated at baseline and over the 14 days (P < .001). Individual symptoms were least severe in the vaccine-boosted group including cough, chills, fever, nausea, fatigue, myalgia, headache, and diarrhea, as well as smell and taste abnormalities. Results were consistent over Delta and Omicron variant time periods. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-boosted participants had the least severe symptoms during COVID-19, which abated the quickest over time. Clinical Trial Registration. NCT04510194.

Trends in Ransomware Attacks on US Hospitals, Clinics, and Other Health Care Delivery Organizations, 2016-2021.

Importance: Anecdotal evidence suggests that health care delivery organizations face a growing threat from ransomware attacks that are designed to disrupt care delivery and may consequently threaten patient outcomes. Objective: To quantify the frequency and characteristics of ransomware attacks on health care delivery organizations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the Tracking Healthcare Ransomware Events and Traits database to examine the number and characteristics of ransomware attacks on health care delivery organizations from 2016 to 2021. Logistic and negative binomial regression quantified changes over time in the characteristics of ransomware attacks that affected health care delivery organizations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Date of ransomware attack, public reporting of ransomware attacks, personal health information (PHI) exposure, status of encrypted/stolen data following the attack, type of health care delivery organization affected, and operational disruption during the ransomware attack. Results: From January 2016 to December 2021, 374 ransomware attacks on US health care delivery organizations exposed the PHI of nearly 42 million patients. From 2016 to 2021, the annual number of ransomware attacks more than doubled from 43 to 91. Almost half (166 [44.4%]) of ransomware attacks disrupted the delivery of health care, with common disruptions including electronic system downtime (156 [41.7%]), cancellations of scheduled care (38 [10.2%]), and ambulance diversion (16 [4.3%]). From 2016 to 2021, ransomware attacks on health care delivery organizations increasingly affected large organizations with multiple facilities (annual marginal effect [ME], 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.10; P < .001), exposed the PHI of more patients (ME, 66 385.8; 95% CI, 3400.5-129 371.2; P = .04), were less likely to be restored from data backups (ME, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01; P = .002), were more likely to exceed mandatory reporting timelines (ME, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.08; P < .001), and increasingly were associated with delays or cancellations of scheduled care (ME, 0.02; 95% CI, 0-0.05; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of ransomware attacks documented growth in their frequency and sophistication. Ransomware attacks disrupt care delivery and jeopardize information integrity. Current monitoring/reporting efforts provide limited information and could be expanded to potentially yield a more complete view of how this growing form of cybercrime affects the delivery of health care.

Vasodilation in patients with calcium channel blocker poisoning treated with high-dose insulin: a comparison of amlodipine versus non-dihydropyridines.

Background: High dose insulin (HDI), an inotrope and vasodilator, is a standard therapy for calcium channel blocker (CCB) poisoning. HDI causes vasodilation by stimulating endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). Most literature supporting HDI for CCB poisoning involves verapamil toxicity; however, amlodipine now causes more CCB poisonings. Unlike other CCBs, amlodipine stimulates eNOS and may cause synergistic vasodilation with HDI. The purpose of this study was to determine if amlodipine-poisoned patients treated with HDI had more evidence of vasodilation than similarly treated patients with non-dihydropyridine (non-DHP) poisoning.Methods: This was a retrospective study from a single poison center. Cases were identified via the generic code "Calcium Antagonists" in which the therapy "High Dose Insulin/Glucose" was "performed, whether or not recommended" from 2019-2021. Evidence of vasodilation was assessed via maximum number of vasopressor infusions per case, vasopressor doses, and use of rescue methylene blue to treat refractory vasoplegia.Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled: 18 poisoned with amlodipine, 15 with non-DHPs (verapamil n = 10, diltiazem n = 5). The median number of maximum concomitant vasopressors in the amlodipine group was 3 (IQR: 2-5; range 0-6) and 2 in the non-DHP group (IQR: 1-3; range 0-5; p = 0.04); median difference in maximum concomitant vasopressors between groups was 1 (95% confidence interval: 0-2). Median maximum epinephrine dosing was higher in the amlodipine group (0.31 mcg/kg/min) compared to non-DHPs (0.09 mcg/kg/min; p = 0.03). Use of rescue methylene blue was more common in the amlodipine group (7/18 [39%]) than in the non-DHP group (0; p = 0.009).Conclusions: Amlodipine poisoned patients treated with HDI required more vasopressors, higher doses of epinephrine, and more often received rescue methylene blue than similarly treated patients with verapamil or diltiazem poisoning. These differences suggest amlodipine-poisoned patients had more evidence of vasodilation. Further study is warranted to determine if synergistic vasodilation occurs when HDI is used to treat amlodipine poisoning.

Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Early treatment to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an important component of the comprehensive response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we used a 2-by-3 factorial design to test the effectiveness of three repurposed drugs - metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine - in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalized adults who had been enrolled within 3 days after a confirmed diagnosis of infection and less than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The patients were between the ages of 30 and 85 years, and all had either overweight or obesity. The primary composite end point was hypoxemia (≤93% oxygen saturation on home oximetry), emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death. All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and receipt of other trial medications. RESULTS: A total of 1431 patients underwent randomization; of these patients, 1323 were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years; 56% were female (6% of whom were pregnant), and 52% had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P = 0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P = 0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P = 0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19. (Funded by the Parsemus Foundation and others; COVID-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04510194.).

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19.