Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study.

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Treatments in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes following COVID-19 exist, in part, due to factors involving healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to characterize disparities in the administration of evidence-based COVID-19 treatments among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: Using a large, US hospital database, initiation of COVID-19 treatments was compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between May 2020 and April 2022 according to patient race and ethnicity. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of race and ethnicity on the likelihood of receiving COVID-19 treatments, stratified by baseline supplemental oxygen requirement. RESULTS: The identified population comprised 317,918 White, 76,715 Black, 9297 Asian, and 50,821 patients of other or unknown race. There were 329,940 non-Hispanic, 74,199 Hispanic, and 50,622 patients of unknown ethnicity. White patients were more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments, and specifically corticosteroids, compared to Black, Asian, and other patients (COVID-19 treatment: 87% vs. 81% vs. 85% vs. 84%, corticosteroids: 85% vs. 79% vs. 82% vs. 82%). After covariate adjustment, White patients were significantly more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments than Black patients across all levels of supplemental oxygen requirement. No clear trend in COVID-19 treatments according to ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was observed. CONCLUSION: There were important racial disparities in inpatient COVID-19 treatment initiation, including the undertreatment of Black patients and overtreatment of White patients. Our new findings reveal the actual magnitude of this issue in routine clinical practice to clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers. This is crucial to ensuring equitable and appropriate access to evidence-based therapies.

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Findings: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Interpretation: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Funding: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Choosing immunomodulating therapies for the treatment of COVID-19: recommendations based on placebo-controlled trial evidence.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulatory therapy has been extensively studied in randomized clinical trials for the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inconsistent findings. Guideline committees, reviewing the same clinical trial data, have generated different recommendations for immunomodulatory therapy. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that trial design differences, specifically whether the study utilized an open-label or placebo-controlled design, accounted for the inconsistent mortality effects reported in clinical trials of immunomodulator therapies for COVID-19. SOURCES: We reviewed COVID-19 treatment guidelines (World Health Organization [WHO], Infectious Diseases Society of America [IDSA] and The National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and identified the meta-analyses associated with glucocorticoids, IL-6 inhibitors, JAK kinase inhibitors, and complement C5a inhibitors that were available to the guideline authors at the time recommendations were either made or updated. CONTENT: We identified a meta-analysis for each of the immunomodulator classes that are included in current COVID-19 treatment guidelines: glucocorticoids [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), IL-6 antagonists [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), JAK inhibitors [Kramer A, Prinz C, Fichtner F, Fischer AL, Thieme V, Grundeis F, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6:CD015209] (cited 34), and complement C5a inhibitors [Tsai CL, Lai CC, Chen CY, Lee HS. The efficacy and safety of complement C5a inhibitors for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21:77-86] (cited 1). Using the same randomized clinical trials, we evaluated the four meta-analyses accounting for trial design: placebo-controlled or open-label. Glucocorticoids (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49-1.69]), IL-6 inhibitors sarilumab (RR 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-01.43]), and tocilizumab (RR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.19]) did not reduce mortality in placebo-controlled trials, whereas baricitinib did confer a large survival benefit (RR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). The complement C5a inhibitor, vilobelimab, also reduced mortality in a single placebo-controlled trial (RR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.0]). IMPLICATIONS: Placebo-controlled trial evidence indicates that baricitinib should be the first choice immunomodulator for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who require any form of oxygen support-low- or high-flow oxygen, non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Vilobelimab warrants study in a large placebo-controlled trial. Treatment guidelines for future pandemics should prioritize the results of placebo-controlled trials.

Management of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Guidelines.

Two recent major guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) recommend consideration of local antibiotic resistance patterns and individual patient risks for resistant pathogens when formulating an initial empiric antibiotic regimen. One recommends against invasive diagnostic techniques with quantitative cultures to determine the cause of VAP; the other recommends either invasive or noninvasive techniques. Both guidelines recommend short-course therapy be used for most patients with VAP. Although neither guideline recommends use of procalcitonin as an adjunct to clinical judgment when diagnosing VAP, they differ with respect to use of serial procalcitonin to shorten the length of antibiotic treatment.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

A Randomized, Open-Label, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial Assessing 7 Versus 14 Days of Antimicrobial Therapy for Severe Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections: The OPTIMISE Trial Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Shorter courses of antimicrobials have been shown to be non-inferior to longer, "traditional" duration of therapies, including for some severe healthcare-associated infections, with a few exceptions. However, evidence is lacking regarding shorter regimes against severe infections by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB), which are often caused by distinct strains and commonly treated with second-line antimicrobials. In the duratiOn of theraPy in severe infecTIons by MultIdrug-reSistant gram-nEgative bacteria (OPTIMISE) trial, we aim to assess the non-inferiority of 7-day versus 14-day antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients with severe infections caused by MDR-GNB. METHODS: This is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel controlled trial to assess the non-inferiority of 7-day versus 14-day of adequate antimicrobial therapy for intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired severe infections by MDR-GNB. Adult patients with severe infections by MDR-GNB initiated after 48 h of ICU admission are screened for eligibility. Patients are eligible if they proved to be hemodynamically stable and without fever for at least 48 h on the 7th day of adequate antimicrobial therapy. After consenting, patients are 1:1 randomized to discontinue antimicrobial therapy on the 7th (± 1) day or to continue for a total of 14th (± 1) days. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is treatment failure, defined as death or relapse of infection within 28 days after randomization. Non-inferiority will be achieved if the upper edge of the two-tailed 95% confidence interval of the difference between the clinical failure rate in the 7-day and the 14-day group is not higher than 10%. CONCLUSION: The OPTIMISE trial is the first randomized controlled trial specifically designed to assess the duration of antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe infections by MDR-GNB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05210387. Registered on 27 January 2022. Seven Versus 14 Days of Antibiotic Therapy for Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative Bacilli Infections (OPTIMISE).

Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.

RATIONALE: Fever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: This is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL DESIGN: The SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements. RESULTS: The panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Remdesivir Is Associated With Reduced Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen Including Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Across SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Background: This comparative effectiveness study investigated the effect of remdesivir on in-hospital mortality among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring supplemental oxygen including low-flow oxygen (LFO), high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation (HFO/NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (IMV/ECMO) across variant of concern (VOC) periods. Methods: Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 and administered remdesivir upon admission were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients not administered remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by supplemental oxygen requirement upon admission and VOC period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 14- and 28-day mortality. Results: Patients treated with remdesivir (67 582 LFO, 34 857 HFO/NIV, and 4164 IMV/ECMO) were matched to non-remdesivir patients. Unadjusted mortality rates were significantly lower for remdesivir-treated patients at 14 days (LFO: 6.4% vs. 8.8%; HFO/NIV: 16.8% vs. 19.4%; IMV/ECMO: 27.8% vs. 35.3%) and 28 days (LFO: 9.8% vs. 12.3%; HFO/NIV: 25.8% vs. 28.3%; IMV/ECMO: 41.4% vs. 50.6%). After adjustment, remdesivir treatment was associated with a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality at 14 days (LFO: aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.79; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and 28 days (LFO: aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; HFO/NIV: aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; IMV/ECMO: aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.82) compared with non-remdesivir treatment. Lower risk of mortality among remdesivir-treated patients was observed across VOC periods. Conclusions: Remdesivir treatment is associated with significantly reduced mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen upon admission, including those requiring HFO/NIV or IMV/ECMO with severe or critical disease, across VOC periods.

Remdesivir Reduced Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Across Variant Waves: Findings From Routine Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised patients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, yet treatment strategies for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 reflect variations in clinical practice. In this comparative effectiveness study, we investigated the effect of remdesivir treatment on inpatient mortality among immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across all variants of concern (VOC) periods. METHODS: Data for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 2020 and April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AITM Healthcare Database. Patients who received remdesivir within 2 days of hospitalization were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to patients who did not receive remdesivir. Additional matching criteria included admission month, age group, and hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the effect of remdesivir on risk of 14- and 28-day mortality during VOC periods. RESULTS: A total of 19 184 remdesivir patients were matched to 11 213 non-remdesivir patients. Overall, 11.1% and 17.7% of remdesivir patients died within 14 and 28 days, respectively, compared with 15.4% and 22.4% of non-remdesivir patients. Remdesivir was associated with a reduction in mortality at 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .62-.78) and 28 days (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, .68-.83). The survival benefit remained significant during the pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron periods. CONCLUSIONS: Prompt initiation of remdesivir in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is associated with significant survival benefit across all variant waves. These findings provide much-needed evidence relating to the effectiveness of a foundational treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients among a high-risk population.

Evaluating Demographic Representation in Clinical Trials: Use of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment Trial (ACTT) as a Test Case.

Background: Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods: We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results: US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions: Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Baricitinib Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Is Associated With a Reduction in Secondary Infections.

We performed a secondary analysis of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) randomized controlled trial and found that baricitinib was associated with a 50% reduction in secondary infections after controlling for baseline and postrandomization patient characteristics. This finding provides a novel mechanism of benefit for baricitinib and supports the safety profile of this immunomodulator for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.