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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interim Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥18 Years - VISION and IVY Networks, September 2023-January 2024.

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine.

Interim Estimates of 2023-24 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness - United States.

In the United States, annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months. Using data from four vaccine effectiveness (VE) networks during the 2023-24 influenza season, interim influenza VE was estimated among patients aged ≥6 months with acute respiratory illness-associated medical encounters using a test-negative case-control study design. Among children and adolescents aged 6 months-17 years, VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits ranged from 59% to 67% and against influenza-associated hospitalization ranged from 52% to 61%. Among adults aged ≥18 years, VE against influenza-associated outpatient visits ranged from 33% to 49% and against hospitalization from 41% to 44%. VE against influenza A ranged from 46% to 59% for children and adolescents and from 27% to 46% for adults across settings. VE against influenza B ranged from 64% to 89% for pediatric patients in outpatient settings and from 60% to 78% for all adults across settings. These findings demonstrate that the 2023-24 seasonal influenza vaccine is effective at reducing the risk for medically attended influenza virus infection. CDC recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months who have not yet been vaccinated this season get vaccinated while influenza circulates locally.

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

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

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A-Associated Hospitalization, Organ Failure, and Death: United States, 2022-2023.

BACKGROUND: Influenza circulation during the 2022-2023 season in the United States largely returned to pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-pandemic patterns and levels. Influenza A(H3N2) viruses were detected most frequently this season, predominately clade 3C.2a1b.2a, a close antigenic match to the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand effectiveness of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failure, and death, a multicenter sentinel surveillance network in the United States prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness between 1 October 2022, and 28 February 2023. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failures, and death were measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. RESULTS: A total of 3707 patients, including 714 influenza cases (33% vaccinated) and 2993 influenza- and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls (49% vaccinated) were analyzed. VE against influenza-associated hospitalization was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%-46%) and varied by age (18-64 years: 47% [30%-60%]; ≥65 years: 28% [10%-43%]), and virus (A[H3N2]: 29% [6%-46%], A[H1N1]: 47% [23%-64%]). VE against more severe influenza-associated outcomes included: 41% (29%-50%) against influenza with hypoxemia treated with supplemental oxygen; 65% (56%-72%) against influenza with respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal failure treated with organ support; and 66% (40%-81%) against influenza with respiratory failure treated with invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: During an early 2022-2023 influenza season with a well-matched influenza vaccine, vaccination was associated with reduced risk of influenza-associated hospitalization and organ failure.

Effectiveness of Sotrovimab in Preventing COVID-19-Related Hospitalizations or Deaths Among US Veterans During Omicron BA.1.

Background: The real-world clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization or mortality among high-risk patients diagnosed with COVID-19, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant, needs further research. Method: Using data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, we adopted a target trial emulation design in our study. Veterans aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 between December 1, 2021, and April 4, 2022, were included. Patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 2816) as part of routine clinical care were compared with all eligible but untreated patients (n = 11,250). Cox proportional hazards modeling estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between receipt of sotrovimab and outcomes. Results: Most (90%) sotrovimab recipients were ≥50 years old, and 64% had ≥2 mRNA vaccine doses or ≥1 dose of Ad26.COV2. During the period that BA.1 was dominant, compared with patients not treated, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 70% lower risk of hospitalization or mortality within 30 days (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.40). During BA.2 dominance, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 71% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.08-0.98) lower risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, emergency room visits, or urgent care visits (defined as severe COVID-19) compared with patients not treated. Conclusions: Using national real-world data from high-risk and predominantly vaccinated veterans, administration of sotrovimab, compared with contemporary standard treatment regimens, was associated with reduced risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality during the Omicron BA.1 period.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Provider Perceptions of Oxygenation Strategies for Critically Ill Trauma Patients With and Without Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxia and hyperoxia (pulse oximetry [SpO2] > 96%) are associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients. However, provider practices regarding oxygenation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients are unknown. This study assesses views on oxygenation of critically ill trauma patients with and without TBI and how this varies between Neurological ICU (NeuroICU) and Surgical-Trauma ICU (STICU) providers. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of Level I trauma center's NeuroICU and STICU providers. We used Likert scales, yes-no questions, and multiple-choice case-based scenarios to characterize provider views on oxygenation with descriptive statistics to characterize responses. Significant differences regarding TBI and non-TBI patients or NeuroICU and STICU providers were determined using Fisher's exact test and a P-value of .05. RESULTS: A total of 83 providers initiated the survey, and 53 providers completed it. Most providers identified a threshold SpO2 < 92% for the administration of supplemental oxygen in critically ill TBI patients. A total of 9% of providers "somewhat or completely agreed" that they were more likely to give supplemental oxygen to a critically ill trauma patient with TBI than one without TBI and the same SpO2. A total of 48% of providers selected an SpO2 < 90% as the point at which supplemental oxygen should be initiated in patients without TBI, compared to 27% of providers in patients with TBI (P < .01). This threshold for supplemental oxygen use varied by provider type for non-TBI patients, but not for TBI patients (30% NeuroICU and 69% STICU providers selected SpO2 < 90% in non-TBI, P < .05; 30% NeuroICU and 35% STICU providers selected SpO2 < 90% in TBI, P = .85). CONCLUSIONS: Critical care providers at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital approach the oxygenation of critically ill trauma patients with and without TBI differently. Specifically, critical care respondents accepted a different lower oxygen saturation threshold for TBI and non-TBI patients. NeuroICU and STICU respondents differed in their threshold for the down-titration of supplemental oxygen. Targeted education for critical care providers may reduce these discrepancies and optimize oxygen use.

Disease Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Compared with COVID-19 and Influenza Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥60 Years - IVY Network, 20 U.S. States, February 2022-May 2023.

On June 21, 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for adults aged ≥60 years, offered to individual adults using shared clinical decision-making. Informed use of these vaccines requires an understanding of RSV disease severity. To characterize RSV-associated severity, 5,784 adults aged ≥60 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 U.S. states during February 1, 2022-May 31, 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare RSV disease severity with COVID-19 and influenza severity on the basis of the following outcomes: 1) standard flow (<30 L/minute) oxygen therapy, 2) high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 3) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 4) invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Overall, 304 (5.3%) enrolled adults were hospitalized with RSV, 4,734 (81.8%) with COVID-19 and 746 (12.9%) with influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive standard flow oxygen, HFNC or NIV, and ICU admission than were those hospitalized with COVID-19 or influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive IMV or die compared with patients hospitalized with influenza (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.33-3.26). Among hospitalized older adults, RSV was less common, but was associated with more severe disease than COVID-19 or influenza. High disease severity in older adults hospitalized with RSV is important to consider in shared clinical decision-making regarding RSV vaccination.

Modifiable in-hospital factors for 12-month global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and depression symptoms in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify potentially modifiable in-hospital factors associated with global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months. METHODS: This was a multi-center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. The following in-hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in-person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve-month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA-Blind. Twelve-month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively. FINDINGS: Two hundred three patients completed the 12-month follow-up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA-Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12-month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12-month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85). CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long-term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms).

Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate for Outpatient Treatment of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of inhaled glucocorticoids in shortening the time to symptom resolution or preventing hospitalization or death among outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial in the United States to assess the use of repurposed medications in outpatients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Nonhospitalized adults 30 years of age or older who had at least two symptoms of acute infection that had been present for no more than 7 days before enrollment were randomly assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate at a dose of 200 µg once daily for 14 days or placebo. The primary outcome was the time to sustained recovery, defined as the third of 3 consecutive days without symptoms. Key secondary outcomes included hospitalization or death by day 28 and a composite outcome of the need for an urgent-care or emergency department visit or hospitalization or death through day 28. RESULTS: Of the 1407 enrolled participants who underwent randomization, 715 were assigned to receive inhaled fluticasone furoate and 692 to receive placebo, and 656 and 621, respectively, were included in the analysis. There was no evidence that the use of fluticasone furoate resulted in a shorter time to recovery than placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% credible interval, 0.91 to 1.12; posterior probability of benefit [defined as a hazard ratio >1], 0.56). A total of 24 participants (3.7%) in the fluticasone furoate group had urgent-care or emergency department visits or were hospitalized, as compared with 13 participants (2.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% credible interval, 0.8 to 3.5). Three participants in each group were hospitalized, and no deaths occurred. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with inhaled fluticasone furoate for 14 days did not result in a shorter time to recovery than placebo among outpatients with Covid-19 in the United States. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and others; ACTIV-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04885530.).

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab for preventing COVID-19 during the Omicron surge: retrospective analysis of National Veterans Health Administration electronic data.

Little is known regarding the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated immunocompromised patients, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant. In this retrospective cohort study with exact matching and propensity score adjustment within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, we selected immunocompromised veterans age ≥18 years as of 1 January 2022, receiving VA healthcare. We compared a cohort of 1,878 patients treated with at least one dose of intramuscular tixagevimab/cilgavimab to 7,014 matched controls selected from patients who met study criteria but were not treated. Patients were followed through 15 June 2022, or until death, whichever occurred earlier. The primary outcome was a composite of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI for the association between receipt of tixagevimab/cilgavimab and outcomes. Most (73%) tixagevimab/cilgavimab recipients were ≥65 years old, and 80% had ≥3 mRNA vaccine doses or two doses of Ad26.COV2. Compared to matched controls, recipients had a lower incidence of the composite COVID-19 outcome (49/1,878 [2.6%] versus 312/7,014 [4.4%]; HR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.52), and individually SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88), COVID-19 hospitalization (HR 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10-0.59), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). In conclusion, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was associated with lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 during the Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.2.12.1 surge. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 remains an ongoing global health crisis that justifies continued efforts to validate and expand, when possible, knowledge on the efficacy of available vaccines and treatments. Clinical trials have been limited due to fast tracking of medications for mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic for the general population. We present a real-world analysis, using electronic health record data, of the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab for the prevention of COVID-19 infection in the unique population of U.S. veterans. Unlike those in the PROVENT clinical trial from which the emergency use authorization for tixagevimab/cilgavimab as a preventative treatment arose, the veterans population is highly immunocompromised and nearly 96% totally vaccinated. These demographics allowed us to analyze the effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in preventing COVID-19 under different conditions in a more fragile population than that of the initial clinical trial.

Prophylactic Administration of Vasopressors Prior to Emergency Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter Clinical Trials.

Hypotension affects approximately 40% of critically ill patients undergoing emergency intubation and is associated with an increased risk of death. The objective of this study was to examine the association between prophylactic vasopressor administration and the incidence of peri-intubation hypotension and other clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials. The clinical effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration was estimated using a one-to-one propensity-matched cohort of patients with and without prophylactic vasopressors. SETTING: Seven emergency departments and 17 ICUs across the United States. PATIENTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-eight critically ill patients who underwent emergency intubation at the study sites between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was peri-intubation hypotension defined as a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg occurring between induction and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. A total of 187 patients (10%) received prophylactic vasopressors prior to intubation. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic vasopressors, those who did were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, were more likely to have a diagnosis of sepsis, had lower pre-induction systolic blood pressures, and were more likely to be on continuous vasopressor infusions prior to intubation. In our propensity-matched cohort, prophylactic vasopressor administration was not associated with reduced risk of peri-intubation hypotension (41% vs 32%; p = 0.08) or change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (-12 vs -11 mm Hg; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of prophylactic vasopressors was not associated with a lower incidence of peri-intubation hypotension in our propensity-matched analysis. To address potential residual confounding, randomized clinical trials should examine the effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration on peri-intubation outcomes.