Perceived Hospital Stress, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Activity, and Care Process Temporal Variance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened standard hospital operations. We sought to understand how this stress was perceived and manifested within individual hospitals and in relation to local viral activity. DESIGN: Prospective weekly hospital stress survey, November 2020-June 2022. SETTING: Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Thirteen hospitals across seven U.S. health systems. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 839 hospital-weeks of data over 85 pandemic weeks and five viral surges. Perceived overall hospital, ICU, and emergency department (ED) stress due to severe acute respiratory infection patients during the pandemic were reported by a mean of 43% ( sd , 36%), 32% (30%), and 14% (22%) of hospitals per week, respectively, and perceived care deviations in a mean of 36% (33%). Overall hospital stress was highly correlated with ICU stress (ρ = 0.82; p < 0.0001) but only moderately correlated with ED stress (ρ = 0.52; p < 0.0001). A county increase in 10 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cases per 100,000 residents was associated with an increase in the odds of overall hospital, ICU, and ED stress by 9% (95% CI, 5-12%), 7% (3-10%), and 4% (2-6%), respectively. During the Delta variant surge, overall hospital stress persisted for a median of 11.5 weeks (interquartile range, 9-14 wk) after local case peak. ICU stress had a similar pattern of resolution (median 11 wk [6-14 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.59) while the resolution of ED stress (median 6 wk [5-6 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.003) was earlier. There was a similar but attenuated pattern during the Omicron BA.1 subvariant surge. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived care deviations were common and potentially avoidable patient harm was rare. Perceived hospital stress persisted for weeks after surges peaked.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for hepatitis C virus genotype 3 patients with cirrhosis and/or prior treatment experience: A partially randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of ribavirin-free coformulated glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection with prior treatment experience and/or compensated cirrhosis, a patient population with limited treatment options. SURVEYOR-II, Part 3 was a partially randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study. Treatment-experienced (prior interferon or pegylated interferon ± ribavirin or sofosbuvir plus ribavirin ± pegylated interferon therapy) patients without cirrhosis were randomized 1:1 to receive 12 or 16 weeks of G/P (300 mg/120 mg) once daily. Treatment-naive or treatment-experienced patients with compensated cirrhosis were treated with G/P for 12 or 16 weeks, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with sustained virologic response at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12). Safety was evaluated throughout the study. There were 131 patients enrolled and treated. Among treatment-experienced patients without cirrhosis, SVR12 was achieved by 91% (20/22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72-97) and 95% (21/22; 95% CI, 78-99) of patients treated with G/P for 12 or 16 weeks, respectively. Among those with cirrhosis, SVR12 was achieved by 98% (39/40; 95% CI, 87-99) of treatment-naive patients treated for 12 weeks and 96% (45/47; 95% CI, 86-99) of patients with prior treatment experience treated for 16 weeks. No adverse events led to discontinuation of study drug, and no serious adverse events were related to study drug. Conclusion: Patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection with prior treatment experience and/or compensated cirrhosis achieved high SVR12 rates following 12 or 16 weeks of treatment with G/P. The regimen was well tolerated. (Hepatology 2018;67:514-523).

Grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir for hepatitis C virus after NS5A treatment failure.

People with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who have failed treatment with an all-oral regimen represent a challenging treatment population. The present studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, in participants who had failed an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen. C-SURGE (PN-3682-021) and C-CREST Part C (PN-3682-011 and -012) were open-label, multicenter studies. Participants who had previously relapsed following an NS5A inhibitor-containing all-oral regimen were retreated with grazoprevir 100 mg, ruzasvir 60 mg, and uprifosbuvir 450 mg alone for 24 weeks or with ribavirin for 16 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response (HCV RNA below the limit of quantitation [<15 IU/mL]) 12 weeks after treatment completion (SVR12). In C-SURGE, SVR12 was achieved by 49/49 (100%) and 43/44 (98%) genotype (GT)1 participants in the 24-week no ribavirin arm and the 16-week plus ribavirin arm (lost to follow-up, n = 1), respectively. In C-CREST Part C, SVR12 was achieved by 23/24 (96%) participants treated for 16 weeks with ribavirin (GT1, 2/2 [100%]; GT2, 13/14 [93%]; GT3, 8/8 [100%]). One participant with GT2 infection discontinued study medication after a single dose of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir plus ribavirin due to serious adverse events of vomiting and tachycardia. The presence of baseline resistance-associated substitutions had no impact on SVR12. No participant who completed treatment in either study experienced virologic failure. CONCLUSION: Grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, for 16 or 24 weeks was safe and highly effective in participants with HCV infection who had previously failed NS5A inhibitor-containing therapy. (Hepatology 2017;66:1794-1804).