Race, Ethnicity, and Delayed Time to COVID-19 Testing Among US Health Care Workers.

Importance: Access to COVID-19 testing is critical to reducing transmission and supporting early treatment decisions; when made accessible, the timeliness of testing may also be an important metric in mitigating community spread of the infection. While disparities in transmission and outcomes of COVID-19 have been well documented, the extent of timeliness of testing and the association with demographic factors is unclear. Objectives: To evaluate demographic factors associated with delayed COVID-19 testing among health care personnel (HCP) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Preventing Emerging Infections Through Vaccine Effectiveness Testing study, a multicenter, test-negative, case-control vaccine effectiveness study that enrolled HCP who had COVID-19 symptoms and testing between December 2020 and April 2022. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to Junne 2023. Exposure: Displaying COVID-19-like symptoms and polymerase chain reaction testing occurring from the first day symptoms occurred up to 14 days after symptoms occurred. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variables of interest included patient demographics (sex, age, and clinical comorbidities) and COVID-19 characteristics (vaccination status and COVID-19 wave). The primary outcome was time from symptom onset to COVID-19 testing, which was defined as early testing (≤2 days) or delayed testing (≥3 days). Associations of demographic characteristics with delayed testing were measured while adjusting for clinical comorbidities, COVID-19 characteristics, and test site using multivariable modeling to estimate relative risks and 95% CIs. Results: A total of 5551 HCP (4859 female [82.9%]; 1954 aged 25-34 years [35.2%]; 4233 non-Hispanic White [76.3%], 370 non-Hispanic Black [6.7%], and 324 non-Hispanic Asian [5.8%]) were included in the final analysis. Overall, 2060 participants (37.1%) reported delayed testing and 3491 (62.9%) reported early testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White HCP, delayed testing was higher among non-Hispanic Black HCP (adjusted risk ratio, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.10-1.27) and for non-Hispanic HCP of other races (adjusted risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33). Sex and age were not associated with delayed testing. Compared with clinical HCP with graduate degrees, all other professional and educational groups had significantly delayed testing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of HCP, compared with non-Hispanic White HCP and clinical HCP with graduate degrees, non-Hispanic Black HCP, non-Hispanic HCP of other races, and HCP all other professional and education backgrounds were more likely to have delayed COVID-19 testing. These findings suggest that time to testing may serve as a valuable metric in evaluating sociodemographic disparities in the response to COVID-19 and future health mitigation strategies.

Investigating the Association Between Dynamic Driving Pressure and Mortality in COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Joint Modeling Approach Using Real-Time Continuously-Monitored Ventilation Data.

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVES: COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high mortality and often necessitates invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Previous studies on non-COVID-19 ARDS have shown driving pressure to be robustly associated with ICU mortality; however, those studies relied on "static" driving pressure measured periodically and manually. As "continuous" automatically monitored driving pressure is becoming increasingly available and reliable with more advanced mechanical ventilators, we aimed to examine the effect of this "dynamic" driving pressure in COVID-19 ARDS throughout the entire ventilation period. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective, observational study cohort study evaluates the association between driving pressure and ICU mortality in patients with concurrent COVID-19 and ARDS using multivariate joint modeling. The study cohort (n = 544) included all adult patients (≥ 18 yr) with COVID-19 ARDS between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021, on volume-control mode IMV for 12 hours or more in a Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 544 included patients, 171 (31.4%) died in the ICU. Increased dynamic ΔP was associated with increased risk in the hazard of ICU mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.035; 95% credible interval, 1.004-1.069) after adjusting for other relevant dynamic respiratory biomarkers. A significant increase in risk in the hazard of death was found for every hour of exposure to high intensities of driving pressure (≥ 15 cm H2O) (HR 1.002; 95% credible interval 1.001-1.003). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting patients' exposure to high intensities of driving pressure even while under lung-protective ventilation may represent a critical step in improving ICU survival in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Time-series IMV data could be leveraged to enhance real-time monitoring and decision support to optimize ventilation strategies at the bedside.

Plasma renin as a novel prognostic biomarker of sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition in critical care medicine for which there is a substantial need for early prognostic biomarkers of outcome. The present study seeks to link plasma renin levels and 30-day mortality in sepsis-associated ARDS patients treated at our institution. The Registry of Critical Illness (RoCI) prospectively enrolled patients from the intensive care units (ICU) within a single academic medical center, and a convenience sample of patients with sepsis-associated ARDS was analyzed from this cohort. This study was approved by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Boards (IRB) as part of the RoCI, and all procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional board. From April 2012 to February 2019, a cohort of 32 adult sepsis-associated ARDS patients with 500 µL of plasma samples available on Day 0 and Day 3 of their ICU stay were enrolled. Renin levels were measured twice, on Day 0 and Day 3 via the direct renin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA EIA-525) by DRG diagnostics. Day 0 and Day 3 renin were statistically evaluated via logistic regression to predict 30-day mortality. Direct renin levels of 64 samples were assayed from 32 sepsis-associated ARDS patients (50% male; mean ± SD, 55 ± 13.8 years old). The 30-day hospital mortality rate was 59.4%. Patients who died within 30 days of admission were more likely to have an elevated Day 3 Renin (Odds ratio [OR] = 6, 95% CI 1.25-28.84) and have received vasopressors (OR = 13.33, 95% CI 1.43-123.95). Adjusting for vasopressor use as a proxy for septic shock status, patients with an Elevated Day 3 Renin had a 6.85 (95% CI 1.07-43.75) greater odds of death than those with Low-Normal Day 3 Renin. Patients with sustained Elevated Renin levels from Day 0 to Day 3 had the highest risk of death in a 30-day window. In this study, we found that renin may be a novel biomarker that has prognostic value for patients with sepsis-associated ARDS. Future studies evaluating renin levels in patients with sepsis-associated ARDS are needed to validate these findings.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Differences in Prevalence of Transfusion Protocols between Critically Ill Neurologic and Non-Neurologic Patient Populations.

This study describes the prevalence of blood transfusion protocols in ICUs caring for neurologically vs. non-neurologically injured patients across a sample of US ICUs. This prospective, observational multi-center cohort study is a subgroup analysis of the USCIITG-CIOS, comprising 69 ICUs across the US (25 medical, 24 surgical, 20 mixed ICUs). Sixty-four ICUs were in teaching hospitals. A total of 6179 patients were enrolled, with 1266 (20.4%) having central nervous system (CNS) primary diagnoses. We evaluated whether CNS versus non-CNS diagnosis was associated with care in ICUs with restrictive transfusion protocols (RTPs) or massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) and whether CNS versus non-CNS diagnosis was associated with receiving blood products or colloids during the initial 24 h of care. Protocol utilization in CNS vs. non-CNS patients was as follows: RTPs-36.9% vs. 42.9% (p < 0.001); MTPs-48.3% vs. 47.4% (p = 0.57). Blood product transfusions in the first 24 h of ICU care (comparing CNS vs. non-CNS patients) were as follows: packed red blood cells-4.3% vs. 14.6% (p < 0.001); fresh frozen plasma-2.9% vs. 5.1% (p < 0.001); colloid blood products-3.2% vs. 9.2% (p < 0.001). In this cohort, we found differences in ICU utilization of RTPs, but not MTPs, when comparing where critically ill patients with neurologic versus non-neurologic primary diagnoses received ICU care.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

Single-cell transcriptomics reveal a hyperacute cytokine and immune checkpoint axis after cardiac arrest in patients with poor neurological outcome.

BACKGROUND: Most patients hospitalized after cardiac arrest (CA) die because of neurological injury. The systemic inflammatory response after CA is associated with neurological injury and mortality but remains poorly defined. METHODS: We determine the innate immune network induced by clinical CA at single-cell resolution. FINDINGS: Immune cell states diverge as early as 6 h post-CA between patients with good or poor neurological outcomes 30 days after CA. Nectin-2+ monocyte and Tim-3+ natural killer (NK) cell subpopulations are associated with poor outcomes, and interactome analysis highlights their crosstalk via cytokines and immune checkpoints. Ex vivo studies of peripheral blood cells from CA patients demonstrate that immune checkpoints are a compensatory mechanism against inflammation after CA. Interferon γ (IFNγ)/interleukin-10 (IL-10) induced Nectin-2 on monocytes; in a negative feedback loop, Nectin-2 suppresses IFNγ production by NK cells. CONCLUSIONS: The initial hours after CA may represent a window for therapeutic intervention in the resolution of inflammation via immune checkpoints. FUNDING: This work was supported by funding from the American Heart Association, Brigham and Women's Hospital Department of Medicine, the Evergreen Innovation Fund, and the National Institutes of Health.

A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19.

Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Bacterial and Viral Biomarker Point-of-Care Test in the Outpatient Setting.

Importance: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) account for most outpatient visits. Discriminating bacterial vs viral etiology is a diagnostic challenge with therapeutic implications. Objective: To investigate whether FebriDx, a rapid, point-of-care immunoassay, can differentiate bacterial- from viral-associated host immune response in ARI through measurement of myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA) and C-reactive protein (CRP) from finger-stick blood. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study enrolled adults and children who were symptomatic for ARI and individuals in a control group who were asymptomatic between October 2019 and April 2021. Included participants were a convenience sample of patients in outpatient settings (ie, emergency department, urgent care, and primary care) who were symptomatic, aged 1 year or older, and had suspected ARI and fever within 72 hours. Individuals with immunocompromised state and recent vaccine, antibiotics, stroke, surgery, major burn, or myocardial infarction were excluded. Of 1685 individuals assessed for eligibility, 259 individuals declined participation, 718 individuals were excluded, and 708 individuals were enrolled (520 patients with ARI, 170 patients without ARI, and 18 individuals who dropped out). Exposures: Bacterial and viral immunoassay testing was performed using finger-stick blood. Results were read at 10 minutes, and treating clinicians and adjudicators were blinded to results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Bacterial- or viral-associated systemic host response to an ARI as determined by a predefined comparator algorithm with adjudication classified infection etiology. Results: Among 520 participants with ARI (230 male patients [44.2%] and 290 female patients [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 35.3 [17.7] years), 24 participants with missing laboratory information were classified as unknown (4.6%). Among 496 participants with a final diagnosis, 73 individuals (14.7%) were classified as having a bacterial-associated response, 296 individuals (59.7%) as having a viral-associated response, and 127 individuals (25.6%) as negative by the reference standard. The bacterial and viral test correctly classified 68 of 73 bacterial infections, demonstrating a sensitivity of 93.2% (95% CI, 84.9%-97.0%), specificity of 374 of 423 participants (88.4% [95% CI, 85.0%-91.1%]), positive predictive value (PPV) of 68 of 117 participants (58.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-66.7%), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 374 of 379 participants (98.7% [95% CI, 96.9%-99.4%]).The test correctly classified 208 of 296 viral infections, for a sensitivity of 70.3% (95% CI, 64.8%-75.2%), a specificity of 176 of 200 participants (88.0% [95% CI, 82.8%-91.8%]), a PPV of 208 of 232 participants (89.7% [95% CI, 85.1%-92.9%]), and an NPV of 176 of 264 participants (66.7% [95% CI, 60.8%-72.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a rapid diagnostic test demonstrated diagnostic performance that may inform clinicians when assessing for bacterial or viral etiology of ARI symptoms.

Auxora vs. placebo for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcium release-activated calcium (CRAC) channel inhibitors block proinflammatory cytokine release, preserve endothelial integrity and may effectively treat patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: CARDEA was a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the addition of Auxora, a CRAC channel inhibitor, to corticosteroids and standard of care in adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Eligible patients were adults with ≥ 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 infection, a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by laboratory testing using polymerase chain reaction or other assay, and pneumonia documented by chest imaging. Patients were also required to be receiving oxygen therapy using either a high flow or low flow nasal cannula at the time of enrolment and have at the time of enrollment a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 75 and ≤ 300. The PaO2/FiO2 was imputed from a SpO2/FiO2 determine by pulse oximetry using a non-linear equation. Patients could not be receiving either non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of enrolment. The primary endpoint was time to recovery through Day 60, with secondary endpoints of all-cause mortality at Day 60 and Day 30. Due to declining rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and utilization of standard of care medications prohibited by regulatory guidance, the trial was stopped early. RESULTS: The pre-specified efficacy set consisted of the 261 patients with a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2≤ 200 with 130 and 131 in the Auxora and placebo groups, respectively. Time to recovery was 7 vs. 10 days (P = 0.0979) for patients who received Auxora vs. placebo, respectively. The all-cause mortality rate at Day 60 was 13.8% with Auxora vs. 20.6% with placebo (P = 0.1449); Day 30 all-cause mortality was 7.7% and 17.6%, respectively (P = 0.0165). Similar trends were noted in all randomized patients, patients on high flow nasal cannula at baseline or those with a baseline imputed PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 100. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were less frequent in patients treated with Auxora vs. placebo and occurred in 34 patients (24.1%) receiving Auxora and 49 (35.0%) receiving placebo (P = 0.0616). The most common SAEs were respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Auxora was safe and well tolerated with strong signals in both time to recovery and all-cause mortality through Day 60 in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies of Auxora in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are warranted. Trial registration NCT04345614.

Outpatient Randomized Controlled Trials in the Covid-19 Era and Beyond.

Outpatient Trials in the Covid-19 Era and BeyondA group of investigators had a meeting at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in May 2020 to discuss ways to decrease thrombotic complications among symptomatic outpatients with Covid-19. The investigators discuss their approach to three specific challenges: conducting a trial remotely, working through regulatory hurdles, and recruiting a diverse population of participants.

Effect of Antithrombotic Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Clinically Stable Symptomatic COVID-19: The ACTIV-4B Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Effectiveness of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine among U.S. Health Care Personnel.

BACKGROUND: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). RESULTS: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Among Health Care Personnel - 33 U.S. Sites, January-March 2021.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.

Recall of clinical trial participation and attrition rates in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

PURPOSE: To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). MATERIALS/METHODS: In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. RESULTS: Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.

Effect of Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 Repletion on Cognitive Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Long-term cognitive impairment frequently occurs after critical illness; no treatments are known to improve long-term cognition. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a single high-dose (540,000 International Units) enteral treatment of vitamin D3 given shortly after hospital admission in critically ill patients who are vitamin D deficient improve long-term global cognition or executive function? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study evaluated long-term cognitive outcomes among patients enrolled in a multicenter, blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing vitamin D3 treatment vs placebo in critically ill adults with vitamin D deficiency. Global cognition was measured by the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Executive function was measured with a composite score derived from three Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System subscales. Outcomes were assessed at a median of 443 days (interquartile range, 390-482 days) after randomization and were compared using multivariate proportional odds regression. Adjusted ORs of > 1.0 would indicate better outcomes in the vitamin D3 group compared with the placebo group. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled, including 47 patients randomized to vitamin D3 treatment and 48 patients randomized to placebo. The adjusted median RBANS score at follow-up was 79.6 (95% CI, 73.0-84.0) in the vitamin D3 group and 82.1 (95% CI, 74.7-84.6) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.50-1.38). The adjusted median executive function composite scores were 8.1 (95% CI, 6.8-9.0) and 8.7 (95% CI, 7.4-9.3), respectively (adjusted OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.36-1.42). INTERPRETATION: In vitamin D-deficient, critically-ill adults, a large dose of enteral vitamin D3 did not improve long-term global cognition or executive function. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03733418; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Effect of Ascorbic Acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine on Organ Injury in Septic Shock: The ACTS Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine has been identified as a potential therapy for septic shock. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine attenuates organ injury in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine vs placebo for adult patients with septic shock. Two hundred five patients were enrolled between February 9, 2018, and October 27, 2019, at 14 centers in the United States. Follow-up continued until November 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid (1500 mg), hydrocortisone (50 mg), and thiamine (100 mg) every 6 hours for 4 days (n = 103) or placebo in matching volumes at the same time points (n = 102). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0-24; 0 = best) between enrollment and 72 hours. Key secondary outcomes included kidney failure and 30-day mortality. Patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug were included in analyses. RESULTS: Among 205 randomized patients (mean age, 68 [SD, 15] years; 90 [44%] women), 200 (98%) received at least 1 dose of study drug, completed the trial, and were included in the analyses (101 with intervention and 99 with placebo group). Overall, there was no statistically significant interaction between time and treatment group with regard to SOFA score over the 72 hours after enrollment (mean SOFA score change from 9.1 to 4.4 [-4.7] points with intervention vs 9.2 to 5.1 [-4.1] points with placebo; adjusted mean difference, -0.8; 95% CI, -1.7 to 0.2; P = .12 for interaction). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failure (31.7% with intervention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or in 30-day mortality (34.7% vs 29.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2; P = .26). The most common serious adverse events were hyperglycemia (12 patients with intervention and 7 patients with placebo), hypernatremia (11 and 7 patients, respectively), and new hospital-acquired infection (13 and 12 patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with septic shock, the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine, compared with placebo, did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SOFA score during the first 72 hours after enrollment. These data do not support routine use of this combination therapy for patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03389555.

The Development of Critical Care Medicine in China: From SARS to COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Critical care medicine is a branch of medical science that deals with the characteristics and regularity of life-threatening processes initiated by any injury or disease and, accordingly, relevant treatment for patients with critical illness. Conceptions of critical care medicine in China stemmed in the early 1970s. Ever since the establishment of the first intensive care unit (ICU) along with the increasingly incomparable role of ICU in medical practices, critical care medicine has become an indispensable part of the Chinese medical and health system. Currently, critical care medicine as a secondary clinical discipline and a well-constructed science is in sustainable development on the way towards systematization and standardization. METHODS: The gross domestic product (GDP) and population data were obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics. The number of ICUs, ICU beds, and hospital beds and other data regarding ICU staffing and facility resources were obtained from the Yearbook of Health in the People's Republic of China and National Bureau of Statistics. The mortality rates of SARS and COVID-19 and the number of health workers aiding Hubei amid COVID-19 pandemic were obtained from the National Health Commission. Findings. Critical care medicine in mainland China has made significant strides: both quantity and quality are progressing at a fast pace after SARS in 2003. Although there exist some disparities in healthcare personnel and medical resources, they have not hindered the country from mobilizing its healthcare workers and resources against a public health emergency.

Multi-tiered screening and diagnosis strategy for COVID-19: a model for sustainable testing capacity in response to pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by novel enveloped single stranded RNA coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is responsible for an ongoing global pandemic. While other countries deployed widespread testing as an early mitigation strategy, the U.S. experienced delays in development and deployment of organism identification assays. As such, there is uncertainty surrounding disease burden and community spread, severely hampering containment efforts. COVID-19 illuminates the need for a tiered diagnostic approach to rapidly identify clinically significant infections and reduce disease spread. Without the ability to efficiently screen patients, hospitals are overwhelmed, potentially delaying treatment for other emergencies. A multi-tiered, diagnostic strategy incorporating a rapid host immune response assay as a screening test, molecular confirmatory testing and rapid IgM/IgG testing to assess benefit from quarantine/further testing and provide information on population exposure/herd immunity would efficiently evaluate potential COVID-19 patients. Triaging patients within minutes with a fingerstick rather than hours/days after an invasive swab is critical to pandemic response as reliance on the existing strategy is limited by assay accuracy, time to results, and testing capacity. Early screening and triage is achievable from the outset of a pandemic with point-of-care host immune response testing which will improve response time to clinical and public health actions.Key messagesDelayed testing deployment has led to uncertainty surrounding overall disease burden and community spread, severely hampering public health containment and healthcare system preparation efforts.A multi-tiered testing strategy incorporating rapid, host immune point-of-care tests can be used now and for future pandemic planning by effectively identifying patients at risk of disease thereby facilitating quarantine earlier in the progression of the outbreak during the weeks and months it can take for pathogen specific confirmatory tests to be developed, validated and manufactured in sufficient quantities.The ability to triage patients at the point of care and support the guidance of medical and therapeutic decisions, for viral isolation or confirmatory testing or for appropriate treatment of COVID-19 and/or bacterial infections, is a critical component to our national pandemic response and there is an urgent need to implement the proposed strategy to combat the current outbreak.

Variability in usual care fluid resuscitation and risk-adjusted outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in shock.

RATIONALE: There remains significant controversy regarding the optimal approach to fluid resuscitation for patients in shock. The magnitude of care variability in shock resuscitation, the confounding effects of disease severity and comorbidity, and the relative impact on sepsis survival are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate usual care variability and determine the differential effect of observed and predicted fluid resuscitation volumes on risk-adjusted hospital mortality for mechanically ventilated patients in shock. METHODS: We performed a retrospective outcome analysis of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care units using the 2013 Premier Hospital Database (Premier, Inc.). Observed and predicted hospital mortality were evaluated by observed and predicted day 1 fluid administration, using the difference in predicted and observed outcomes to adjust for disease severity between groups. Both predictive models were validated using a second large administrative database (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, and cost. RESULTS: Among 33,831 patients, observed hospital mortality was incrementally higher than predicted for each additional liter of day 1 fluid beginning at 7 L (40.9% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.008). Compared to patients that received expected (± 1.5 L predicted) day 1 fluid volumes, greater-than-expected fluid resuscitation was associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality (52.3% vs. 45.0%, p < 0.0001) among all patients with shock and among a subgroup of shock patients with comorbid conditions predictive of lower fluid volume administration (47.1% vs. 41.5%, p < 0.0001). However, in patients with shock but without such conditions, both greater-than-expected (57.5% vs. 49.2%, p < 0.0001) and less-than-expected (52.1% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.037) day 1 fluid resuscitation were associated with increased risk-adjusted hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Highly variable day 1 fluid resuscitation was associated with a non-uniform impact on risk-adjusted hospital mortality among distinct subgroups of mechanically ventilated patients with shock. These findings support closer evaluation of fluid resuscitation strategies that include broadly applied fluid volume targets in the early phase of shock resuscitation.