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

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

Evaluating site-of-care-related racial disparities in kidney graft failure using a novel federated learning framework.

OBJECTIVES: Racial disparities in kidney transplant access and posttransplant outcomes exist between non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients in the United States, with the site of care being a key contributor. Using multi-site data to examine the effect of site of care on racial disparities, the key challenge is the dilemma in sharing patient-level data due to regulations for protecting patients' privacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a federated learning framework, named dGEM-disparity (decentralized algorithm for Generalized linear mixed Effect Model for disparity quantification). Consisting of 2 modules, dGEM-disparity first provides accurately estimated common effects and calibrated hospital-specific effects by requiring only aggregated data from each center and then adopts a counterfactual modeling approach to assess whether the graft failure rates differ if NHB patients had been admitted at transplant centers in the same distribution as NHW patients were admitted. RESULTS: Utilizing United States Renal Data System data from 39 043 adult patients across 73 transplant centers over 10 years, we found that if NHB patients had followed the distribution of NHW patients in admissions, there would be 38 fewer deaths or graft failures per 10 000 NHB patients (95% CI, 35-40) within 1 year of receiving a kidney transplant on average. DISCUSSION: The proposed framework facilitates efficient collaborations in clinical research networks. Additionally, the framework, by using counterfactual modeling to calculate the event rate, allows us to investigate contributions to racial disparities that may occur at the level of site of care. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework is broadly applicable to other decentralized datasets and disparities research related to differential access to care. Ultimately, our proposed framework will advance equity in human health by identifying and addressing hospital-level racial disparities.

A Bayesian nonparametric meta-analysis model for estimating the reference interval.

A reference interval represents the normative range for measurements from a healthy population. It plays an important role in laboratory testing, as well as in differentiating healthy from diseased patients. The reference interval based on a single study might not be applicable to a broader population. Meta-analysis can provide a more generalizable reference interval based on the combined population by synthesizing results from multiple studies. However, the assumptions of normally distributed underlying study-specific means and equal within-study variances, which are commonly used in existing methods, are strong and may not hold in practice. We propose a Bayesian nonparametric model with more flexible assumptions to extend random effects meta-analysis for estimating reference intervals. We illustrate through simulation studies and two real data examples the performance of our proposed approach when the assumptions of normally distributed study means and equal within-study variances do not hold.

Acute Appendicitis Treatment Strategies and Mortality Based on Critical Illness on Admission: An Observational Study.

Background: Trials have shown non-inferiority of non-operative management (NOM) for appendicitis, although critically ill patients have been often excluded. The purpose of this study is to evaluate surgical versus NOM outcomes in critically ill patients with appendicitis by measuring mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS). Patients and Methods: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP) Database was utilized to analyze data from 10 states between 2008 and 2015. All patients with acute appendicitis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes over the age of 18 were included. Negative binomial and logistic regression were used to determine the association of acute renal failure (ARF), cardiovascular failure (CVF), pulmonary failure (PF), and sepsis by treatment strategy (laparoscopic, open, both, or no surgery) on mortality and hospital LOS. Results: Among 464,123 patients, 67.5%, 23.3%, 8.2%, and 0.8% underwent laparoscopic, open, NOM, or both laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Patients who underwent surgery had 58% lower odds of mortality and 34% shorter hospital LOS compared with NOM patients. Patients with ARF, CVF, PF, and sepsis had 102%, 383%, 475%, and 666% higher odds of mortality and a 47%, 46%, 71%, and 163% longer hospital LOS, respectively, compared with patients without these diagnoses on admission. Conclusions: Critical illness on admission increases mortality and hospital LOS. Patients who underwent laparoscopic, and to a lesser extent, open appendectomy had improved mortality compared with those who did not undergo surgery regardless of critical illness status.

Double-Negative Results Matter: A Reevaluation of Sensitivities for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection Using Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

In a recent systematic review, Bastos et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):501-510) compared the sensitivities of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by assuming a composite reference standard defined as positive if either test is positive and negative if both tests are negative (double negative). Even under a perfect specificity assumption, this approach ignores the double-negative results and risks overestimating the sensitivities due to residual misclassification. In this article, we first illustrate the impact of double-negative results in the estimation of the sensitivities in a single study, and then propose a 2-step latent class meta-analysis method for reevaluating both sensitivities using the same published data set as that used in Bastos et al. by properly including the observed double-negative results. We also conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed method with Bastos et al.'s method for varied levels of prevalence and between-study heterogeneity. The results demonstrate that the sensitivities are overestimated noticeably using Bastos et al.'s method, and the proposed method provides a more accurate evaluation with nearly no bias and close-to-nominal coverage probability. In conclusion, double-negative results can significantly impact the estimated sensitivities when a gold standard is absent, and thus they should be properly incorporated.

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

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

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

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

Predictors of discharge disposition and mortality following hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

IMPORTANCE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has overwhelmed hospital capacity, prioritizing the need to understand factors associated with type of discharge disposition. OBJECTIVE: Characterization of disposition associated factors following SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Retrospective study of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients from March 7th, 2020, to May 4th, 2022, requiring hospitalization. SETTING: Midwest academic health-system. PARTICIPANTS: Patients above the age 18 years admitted with PCR + SARS-CoV-2. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOMES: Discharge to home versus PAC (inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), skilled-nursing facility (SNF), long-term acute care (LTACH)), or died/hospice while hospitalized (DH). RESULTS: We identified 62,279 SARS-CoV-2 PCR+ patients; 6,248 required hospitalizations, of whom 4611(73.8%) were discharged home, 985 (15.8%) to PAC and 652 (10.4%) died in hospital (DH). Patients discharged to PAC had a higher median age (75.7 years, IQR: 65.6-85.1) compared to those discharged home (57.0 years, IQR: 38.2-69.9), and had longer mean length of stay (LOS) 14.7 days, SD: 14.0) compared to discharge home (5.8 days, SD: 5.9). Older age (RRR:1.04, 95% CI:1.041-1.055), and higher Elixhauser comorbidity index [EI] (RRR:1.19, 95% CI:1.168-1.218) were associated with higher rate of discharge to PAC versus home. Older age (RRR:1.069, 95% CI:1.060-1.077) and higher EI (RRR:1.09, 95% CI:1.071-1.126) were associated with more frequent DH versus home. Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics were less likely to be discharged to PAC (RRR, 0.64 CI 0.47-0.88), (RRR 0.48 CI 0.34-0.67) and (RRR 0.586 CI 0.352-0.975). Having alpha variant was associated with less frequent PAC discharge versus home (RRR 0.589 CI 0.444-780). The relative risks for DH were lower with a higher platelet count 0.998 (CI 0.99-0.99) and albumin levels 0.342 (CI 0.26-0.45), and higher with increased CRP (RRR 1.006 CI 1.004-1.007) and D-Dimer (RRR 1.070 CI 1.039-1.101). Increased albumin had lower risk to PAC discharge (RRR 0.630 CI 0.497-0.798. An increase in D-Dimer (RRR1.033 CI 1.002-1.064) and CRP (RRR1.002 CI1.001-1.004) was associated with higher risk of PAC discharge. A breakthrough (BT) infection was associated with lower likelihood of DH and PAC. CONCLUSION: Older age, higher EI, CRP and D-Dimer are associated with PAC and DH discharges following hospitalization with COVID-19 infection. BT infection reduces the likelihood of being discharged to PAC and DH.

The normality assumption on between-study random effects was questionable in a considerable number of Cochrane meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Studies included in a meta-analysis are often heterogeneous. The traditional random-effects models assume their true effects to follow a normal distribution, while it is unclear if this critical assumption is practical. Violations of this between-study normality assumption could lead to problematic meta-analytical conclusions. We aimed to empirically examine if this assumption is valid in published meta-analyses. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we collected meta-analyses available in the Cochrane Library with at least 10 studies and with between-study variance estimates > 0. For each extracted meta-analysis, we performed the Shapiro-Wilk (SW) test to quantitatively assess the between-study normality assumption. For binary outcomes, we assessed between-study normality for odds ratios (ORs), relative risks (RRs), and risk differences (RDs). Subgroup analyses based on sample sizes and event rates were used to rule out the potential confounders. In addition, we obtained the quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot of study-specific standardized residuals for visually assessing between-study normality. RESULTS: Based on 4234 eligible meta-analyses with binary outcomes and 3433 with non-binary outcomes, the proportion of meta-analyses that had statistically significant non-normality varied from 15.1 to 26.2%. RDs and non-binary outcomes led to more frequent non-normality issues than ORs and RRs. For binary outcomes, the between-study non-normality was more frequently found in meta-analyses with larger sample sizes and event rates away from 0 and 100%. The agreements of assessing the normality between two independent researchers based on Q-Q plots were fair or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The between-study normality assumption is commonly violated in Cochrane meta-analyses. This assumption should be routinely assessed when performing a meta-analysis. When it may not hold, alternative meta-analysis methods that do not make this assumption should be considered.

Patient Outcomes and Unit Composition With Transition to a High-Intensity ICU Staffing Model: A Before-and-After Study.

Provider staffing models for ICUs are generally based on pragmatic necessities and historical norms at individual institutions. A better understanding of the role that provider staffing models play in determining patient outcomes and optimizing use of ICU resources is needed. OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of transitioning from a low- to high-intensity intensivist staffing model on patient outcomes and unit composition. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational before-and-after study of adult ICU patients admitted to a single community hospital ICU before (October 2016-May 2017) and after (June 2017-November 2017) the transition to a high-intensity ICU staffing model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and unit composition characteristics including type (e.g., medical, surgical) and purpose (ICU-specific intervention vs close monitoring only) of admission. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, 1,219 subjects were included (779 low-intensity, 440 high-intensity). In multivariable analysis, the transition to a high-intensity staffing model was not associated with a decrease in 30-day (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.34; p = 0.62) or in-hospital (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.38; p = 0.60) mortality, nor ICU LOS. However, the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU without an ICU-specific need did decrease under the high-intensity staffing model (27.2% low-intensity to 17.5% high-intensity; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Multivariable analysis showed no association between transition to a high-intensity ICU staffing model and mortality or LOS outcomes; however, the proportion of patients admitted without an ICU-specific need decreased under the high-intensity model. Further research is needed to determine whether a high-intensity staffing model may lead to more efficient ICU bed usage.

RIMeta: An R shiny tool for estimating the reference interval from a meta-analysis.

A reference interval, or an interval in which a prespecified proportion of measurements from a healthy population are expected to fall, is used to determine whether a person's measurement is typical of a healthy individual. For a specific biomarker, multiple published studies may provide data collected from healthy participants. A reference interval estimated by combining the data across these studies is typically more generalizable than a reference interval based on a single study. Methods for estimating reference intervals from random effects meta-analysis and fixed-effects meta-analysis have been recently proposed and implemented using R software. We present an R Shiny tool, RIMeta, implementing these methods, which allows users not proficient in R to estimate a reference interval from a meta-analysis using aggregate data (mean, standard deviation, and sample size) from each study. RIMeta (https://cers.shinyapps.io/RIMeta/) provides users a convenient way to estimate a reference interval from a meta-analysis and to generate the reference interval plot to visualize the results. The use of this web-based R Shiny tool does not require the installation of R or any background knowledge of programming. We explain all functions of the R Shiny tool and illustrate how to use it with a real data example.

An improved Bayesian approach to estimating the reference interval from a meta-analysis: Directly monitoring the marginal quantiles and characterizing their uncertainty.

Reference intervals, or reference ranges, aid medical decision-making by containing a pre-specified proportion (e.g., 95%) of the measurements in a representative healthy population. We recently proposed three approaches for estimating a reference interval from a meta-analysis based on a random effects model: a frequentist approach, a Bayesian posterior predictive interval, and an empirical approach. Because the Bayesian posterior predictive interval becomes wider to incorporate estimation uncertainty, it may systematically contain greater than 95% of measurements when the number of studies is small or the between study heterogeneity is large. The frequentist and empirical approaches also captured a median of less than 95% of measurements in this setting, and 95% confidence or credible intervals for the reference interval limits were not developed. In this update, we describe how one can instead use Bayesian methods to summarize the appropriate quantiles (e.g., 2.5th and 97.5th) of the marginal distribution of individuals across studies and construct a credible interval describing the estimation uncertainty in the lower and upper limits of the reference interval. We demonstrate through simulations that this method performs well in capturing 95% of values from the marginal distribution and maintains a median coverage of near 95% of the marginal distribution even when the number of studies is small, or the between-study heterogeneity is large. We also compare the results of this method to those obtained from the three previously proposed methods in the original case study of the meta-analysis of frontal subjective postural vertical measurements.

Histopathologic Features of Breast Tissue From Transgender Men and Their Associations With Androgen Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the histopathologic features of breast tissue of transgender men (TM) undergoing gender-affirming bilateral mastectomies in relation to androgen therapy (AT). METHODS: We reviewed 374 transgender bilateral mastectomy cases from 2017 to 2020. Of these, 314 (84.4%) patients received preoperative AT. We compared these with 127 cases of cisgender females undergoing elective breast reduction. RESULTS: Breast specimens from TM on AT, compared with cisgender women, showed a median higher gross percentage of fibrous tissue (P < .001), reduced lobular density (P = .004), higher amount of lobular atrophy (P < .001), and lower incidence of cysts (P < .001), apocrine metaplasia (P < .001), calcifications (P < .001), columnar cell change (P = .002), and atypia (P = .003). Each additional month of AT was associated with a 2% decrease in the odds of having nonapocrine cysts (P = .02), a 5% decrease in the odds of having usual ductal hyperplasia (P = .007), and a 0.14% decrease in median lobular density (95% confidence interval, -0.18 to -0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, breast specimens from TM, particularly with a history of AT, had a higher proportion of fibrous tissue, fewer lobules, and a higher degree of lobular atrophy than cisgender females. Rare cases of atypia were not predicted by preoperative imaging or gross findings, supporting routine microscopic evaluation of these specimens.

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

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

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Predictors of Postacute Sequelae of COVID-19 Development and Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) and the factors associated with rehabilitation utilization in a large adult population with PASC. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Midwest hospital health system. PARTICIPANTS: 19,792 patients with COVID-19 from March 10, 2020, to January 17, 2021. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive analyses were conducted across the entire cohort along with an adult subgroup analysis. A logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with PASC development and rehabilitation utilization. RESULTS: In an analysis of 19,792 patients, the frequency of PASC was 42.8% in the adult population. Patients with PASC compared with those without had a higher utilization of rehabilitation services (8.6% vs 3.8%, P<.001). Risk factors for rehabilitation utilization in patients with PASC included younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.00; P=.01). In addition to several comorbidities and demographics factors, risk factors for rehabilitation utilization solely in the inpatient population included male sex (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.50; P=.03) with patients on angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers 3 months prior to COVID-19 infections having a decreased risk of needing rehabilitation (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PASC had higher rehabilitation utilization. We identified several clinical and demographic factors associated with the development of PASC and rehabilitation utilization.

Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Is Associated With a Lower Viral Load and Likelihood of Systemic Symptoms.

Background: Data conflict on whether vaccination decreases severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load. The objective of this analysis was to compare baseline viral load and symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated adults enrolled in a randomized trial of outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. Methods: Baseline data from the first 433 sequential participants enrolling into the COVID-OUT trial were analyzed. Adults aged 30-85 with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 were eligible within 3 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and <7 days of symptoms. Log10 polymerase chain reaction viral loads were normalized to human RNase P by vaccination status, by time from vaccination, and by symptoms. Results: Two hundred seventy-four participants with known vaccination status contributed optional nasal swabs for viral load measurement: median age, 46 years; median (interquartile range) BMI 31.2 (27.4-36.4) kg/m2. Overall, 159 (58%) were women, and 217 (80%) were White. The mean relative log10 viral load for those vaccinated <6 months from the date of enrollment was 0.11 (95% CI, -0.48 to 0.71), which was significantly lower than the unvaccinated group (P = .01). Those vaccinated ≥6 months before enrollment did not differ from the unvaccinated with respect to viral load (mean, 0.99; 95% CI, -0.41 to 2.40; P = .85). The vaccinated group had fewer moderate/severe symptoms of subjective fever, chills, myalgias, nausea, and diarrhea (all P < .05). Conclusions: These data suggest that vaccination within 6 months of infection is associated with a lower viral load, and vaccination was associated with a lower likelihood of having systemic symptoms.

RAGE has potential pathogenetic and prognostic value in nonintubated hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BackgroundThe value of the soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGE) as a biomarker in COVID-19 is not well understood. We tested the association between plasma sRAGE and illness severity, viral burden, and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were not mechanically ventilated.MethodsBaseline sRAGE was measured among participants enrolled in the ACTIV-3/TICO trial of bamlanivimab for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between sRAGE and other plasma biomarkers, including viral nucleocapsid antigen. Fine-Gray models adjusted for baseline supplemental oxygen requirement, antigen level, positive endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response, sex, age, BMI, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, corticosteroid treatment, and log2-transformed IL-6 level were used to assess the association between baseline sRAGE and time to sustained recovery. Cox regression adjusted for the same factors was used to assess the association between sRAGE and mortality.ResultsAmong 277 participants, baseline sRAGE was strongly correlated with viral plasma antigen concentration (ρ = 0.57). There was a weaker correlation between sRAGE and biomarkers of systemic inflammation, such as IL-6 (ρ = 0.36) and CRP (ρ = 0.20). Participants with plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile had a significantly lower rate of sustained recovery (adjusted recovery rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.90]) and a higher unadjusted risk of death (HR, 4.70 [95% CI, 2.01-10.99]) compared with participants in the lower quartiles.ConclusionElevated plasma sRAGE in hospitalized, nonventilated patients with COVID-19 was an indicator of both clinical illness severity and plasma viral load. Plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile was associated with a lower likelihood of sustained recovery and higher unadjusted risk of death. These findings, which we believe to be novel, indicate that plasma sRAGE may be a promising biomarker for COVID-19 prognostication and clinical trial enrichment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04501978.FundingNIH (5T32GM008440-24, 18X107CF6, HHSN261201500003I, R35HL140026, and OT2HL156812).