Prospective assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses to a 3rd COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose among immunocompromised individuals.

BACKGROUND: Improved COVID-19 prevention is needed for immunocompromised individuals. METHODS: Prospective study of healthcare workers (HCW) and immunocompromised participants with baseline serology following 2 mRNA vaccines and who were retested after dose 3 (D3); multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of serological responses. IFNγ/TNFα T-cell responses were assessed in a subset. RESULTS: 536 participants were included: 492 immunocompromised [(206 solid organ transplant (SOT), 128 autoimmune, 80 hematologic malignancy (HM), 48 solid tumor, 25 HIV], 44 HCW. D3 significantly increased Spike IgG levels among all, but SOT and HM participants had the lowest median antibody levels post-D3 (increase from 0.09 to 0.83 and 0.27 to 1.92, respectively), versus HCW and persons with HIV, autoimmune conditions, and solid tumors (increases from 4.44 to 19.79, 2.9 to 15.75, 3.82 to 16.32, and 4.1 to 25.54, respectively). Seropositivity post-D3 was lowest for SOT (49.0%) and HM (57.8%), versus others (>90% seropositive). Neutralization post-D3 was lowest among SOT and HM. Predictors of lower antibody levels included low baseline levels and shorter intervals between vaccines. T-cell responses against Spike increased significantly among HCW and non-significantly among immunocompromised individuals. CONCLUSIONS: D3 significantly improves serological but not T-cell responses among immunocompromised individuals. SOT and HM patients have suboptimal responses to D3.

A learning health system approach to the COVID-19 pandemic: System-wide changes in clinical practice and 30-day mortality among hospitalized patients.

Introduction: Rapid, continuous implementation of credible scientific findings and regulatory approvals is often slow in large, diverse health systems. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a new threat to this common "slow to learn and adapt" model in healthcare. We describe how the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) committed to a rapid learning health system (LHS) model to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A treatment cohort study was conducted among 11 429 hospitalized patients (pediatric/adult) from 22 hospitals (PA, NY) with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (March 19, 2020 - June 6, 2021). Sociodemographic and clinical data were captured from UPMC electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Patients were grouped into four time-defined patient "waves" based on nadir of daily hospital admissions, with wave 3 (September 20, 2020 - March 10, 2021) split at its zenith due to high volume with steep acceleration and deceleration. Outcomes included changes in clinical practice (eg, use of corticosteroids, antivirals, and other therapies) in relation to timing of internal system analyses, scientific publications, and regulatory approvals, along with 30-day rate of mortality over time. Results: The mean (SD) daily number of admissions across hospitals was 26 (29) with a maximum 7-day moving average of 107 patients. System-wide implementation of the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab occurred within days of release of corresponding seminal publications and regulatory actions. After adjustment for differences in patient clinical profiles over time, each month of hospital admission was associated with an estimated 5% lower odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-0.97, P < .001). Conclusions: In our large LHS, near real-time changes in clinical management of COVID-19 patients happened promptly as scientific publications and regulatory approvals occurred throughout the pandemic. Alongside these changes, patients with COVID-19 experienced lower adjusted 30-day mortality following hospital admission over time.

Effectiveness of Casirivimab-Imdevimab and Sotrovimab During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge: A Cohort Study and Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria. Exposure: For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound. Results: A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab. METHODS: A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound. FINDINGS: Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

Association of Subcutaneous or Intravenous Administration of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Monoclonal Antibodies With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With COVID-19.

Importance: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but the association with patient outcomes is understudied. Objectives: To evaluate whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization and death compared with nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients and whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study evaluated high-risk outpatients in a learning health system in the US with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021, who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also studied. Exposures: Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of 600 mg of casirivimab and 600 mg of imdevimab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios and differences in hospitalization, death, a composite end point of emergency department admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Among 1959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, 969 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [16.7] years; 547 women [56.4%]) who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (22 of 653 patients) compared with 7.0% (92 of 1306 patients) in nontreated controls (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .002). Among 2185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n = 969) or intravenous (n = 1216; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [16.6] years; 672 women [54.4%]) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 2.8% vs 1.7%, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -0.6% to 3.5%; P = .16). Among all infusion patients, there was no difference in intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 5.0%) or need for mechanical ventilation (adjusted risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 5.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms, subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab was associated with reduced hospitalization and death when compared with no treatment. These results provide preliminary evidence of potential expanded use of subcutaneous mAb treatment, particularly in areas that are facing treatment capacity and/or staffing shortages.

CD4+ T-Cell Dysfunction in Severe COVID-19 Disease Is Tumor Necrosis Factor-α/Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor 1-Dependent.

Rationale: Lymphopenia is common in severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), yet the immune mechanisms are poorly understood. As inflammatory cytokines are increased in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we hypothesized a role in contributing to reduced T-cell numbers. Objectives: We sought to characterize the functional SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in patients with severe versus recovered, mild COVID-19 to determine whether differences were detectable. Methods: Using flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequence analyses, we assessed SARS-CoV-2-specific responses in our cohort. Measurements and Main Results: In 148 patients with severe COVID-19, we found lymphopenia was associated with worse survival. CD4+ lymphopenia predominated, with lower CD4+/CD8+ ratios in severe COVID-19 compared with patients with mild disease (P < 0.0001). In severe disease, immunodominant CD4+ T-cell responses to Spike-1 (S1) produced increased in vitro TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α) but demonstrated impaired S1-specific proliferation and increased susceptibility to activation-induced cell death after antigen exposure. CD4+TNF-α+ T-cell responses inversely correlated with absolute CD4+ counts from patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 76; R = -0.797; P < 0.0001). In vitro TNF-α blockade, including infliximab or anti-TNF receptor 1 antibodies, strikingly rescued S1-specific CD4+ T-cell proliferation and abrogated S1-specific activation-induced cell death in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with severe COVID-19 (P < 0.001). Single-cell RNA sequencing demonstrated marked downregulation of type-1 cytokines and NFκB signaling in S1-stimulated CD4+ cells with infliximab treatment. We also evaluated BAL and lung explant CD4+ T cells recovered from patients with severe COVID-19 and observed that lung T cells produced higher TNF-α compared with peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Conclusions: Together, our findings show CD4+ dysfunction in severe COVID-19 is TNF-α/TNF receptor 1-dependent through immune mechanisms that may contribute to lymphopenia. TNF-α blockade may be beneficial in severe COVID-19.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Prospective Evaluation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Responses Across a Broad Spectrum of Immunocompromising Conditions: the COVID-19 Vaccination in the Immunocompromised Study (COVICS).

BACKGROUND: We studied humoral responses after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination across varying causes of immunodeficiency. METHODS: Prospective study of fully vaccinated immunocompromised adults (solid organ transplant [SOT], hematologic malignancy, solid cancers, autoimmune conditions, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]) versus nonimmunocompromised healthcare workers (HCWs). The primary outcome was the proportion with a reactive test (seropositive) for immunoglobulin G to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of antibody levels and their correlation with pseudovirus neutralization titers. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 1271 participants enrolled: 1099 immunocompromised and 172 HCW. Compared with HCW (92.4% seropositive), seropositivity was lower among participants with SOT (30.7%), hematological malignancies (50.0%), autoimmune conditions (79.1%), solid tumors (78.7%), and HIV (79.8%) (P < .01). Factors associated with poor seropositivity included age, greater immunosuppression, time since vaccination, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, and vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or adenovirus vector vaccines versus messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 (Moderna). mRNA-1273 was associated with higher antibody levels than BNT162b2 or adenovirus vector vaccines after adjusting for time since vaccination, age, and underlying condition. Antibody levels were strongly correlated with pseudovirus neutralization titers (Spearman r = 0.89, P < .0001), but in seropositive participants with intermediate antibody levels, neutralization titers were significantly lower in immunocompromised individuals versus HCW. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccines were lowest among SOT and anti-CD20 monoclonal recipients, and recipients of vaccines other than mRNA-1273. Among those with intermediate antibody levels, pseudovirus neutralization titers were lower in immunocompromised patients than HCWs. Additional SARS-CoV-2 preventive approaches are needed for immunocompromised persons, which may need to be tailored to the cause of immunodeficiency.

The Epidemiology of Extremity Threat and Amputation after Vasopressor-Dependent Sepsis.

Rationale: Extremity threat and amputation after sepsis is a well-publicized and devastating event. However, there is a paucity of data about the epidemiology of extremity threat after sepsis onset. Objectives: To estimate the incidence of extremity threat with or without surgical amputation in community sepsis. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adults with Sepsis-3 hospitalized at 14 academic and community sites from 2013 to 2017. Vasopressor-dependent sepsis was identified by administration of epinephrine, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, vasopressin, or dopamine for more than 1 hour during the 48 hours before to 24 hours after sepsis onset. Outcomes included the incidence of extremity threat, defined as acute onset ischemia, with or without amputation, in the 90 days after sepsis onset. The association between extremity threat, demographics, comorbid conditions, and time-varying sepsis treatments was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among 24,365 adults with sepsis, 12,060 (54%) were vasopressor dependent (mean ± standard deviation age, 64 ± 16 years; male, 6,548 [54%]; sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA], 10 ± 4). Of these, 231 (2%) patients had a threatened extremity with 26 undergoing 37 amputations, a risk of 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.2) per 1,000, and 205 not undergoing amputation, a risk of 17.0 (95% CI, 14.8-19.5) per 1,000. Most amputations occurred in lower extremities (95%), a median (interquartile range) of 16 (6-40) days after sepsis onset. Compared with patients with no extremity threat, patients with threat had a higher SOFA score (11 ± 4 vs. 10 ± 4; P < 0.001), serum lactate (4.6 mmol/L [2.4-8.7] vs. 3.1 [1.7-6.0]; P < 0.001), and more bacteremia (n = 37 [37%] vs. n = 2,087 [26%]; P < 0.001) at sepsis onset. Peripheral vascular disease, congestive heart failure, SOFA score, and norepinephrine equivalents were significantly associated with extremity threat. Conclusions: The evaluation of a threatened extremity resulting in surgical amputation occurred in 2 per 1,000 patients with vasopressor-dependent sepsis.

Launching a comparative effectiveness adaptive platform trial of monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 in 21 days.

Outpatient treatments that limit progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are of vital importance to optimise patient outcomes and public health. Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) demonstrated ability to decrease hospitalizations in randomized, clinical trials. However, there are many barriers to mAb treatment such as patient access and clinician education. There are no data comparing efficacy or safety of available mAbs. We sought to rapidly launch an adaptive platform trial with the goals of enhancing access to treatment, regardless of geography and socioeconomic status, and evaluating comparative efficacy and safety of available mAbs. Within 21 days from idea genesis, we allocated mAb treatment to all patients within the context of this clinical trial. Within 2 months, we closed the gap of the likelihood of receiving mAb, conditional on background positivity rate, between Black and White patients (Black patients 0.238; White patients 0.241). We describe trial infrastructure, lessons learned, and future directions for a culture of learning while doing.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Enhancing Implementation of Complex Critical Care Interventions through Interprofessional Education.

Background: Many critical care interventions that require teamwork are adopted slowly and variably despite strong evidence supporting their use. We hypothesize that educational interventions that target the entire interprofessional team (rather than professions in isolation) are one effective way to enhance implementation of complex interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: As a first step toward testing this hypothesis, we sought to qualitatively solicit opinions about team dynamics, evidence translation, and interprofessional education as well as current knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding the use of one example of a team-based practice in the ICU-preventive postextubation noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation using semistructured interviews and focus groups with nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians working in four ICUs in four hospitals within an integrated health system. ICUs were selected based on variation in academic versus community status. We iteratively analyzed transcripts using a thematic content analysis approach. Results: From December 2018 to January 2019, we conducted 32 interviews (34 people) and 3 focus groups (20 people). Participants included 31 nurses, 15 respiratory therapists, and 8 physicians. Participants had favorable views of how their teams work together but discussed ways team dynamics (e.g., leader inclusiveness) impact care coordination. Participants viewed interprofessional education favorably and shared suggestions regarding preferred content and delivery (e.g., include both profession-specific and team-oriented content). Though participants reported frequently using NIV as a treatment, they described rarely using NIV as a preventive strategy, and nurses and respiratory therapists described challenges to use such as perceived patient discomfort. There were ICU-specific differences in management of patients at a high risk for respiratory failure after extubation, with some preferring to delay extubation. Conclusion: Participants reported optimism that interprofessional education can be an acceptable and effective way to improve translation of evidence into practice. Participants also detailed patient-specific and ICU-wide barriers to the implementation of preventive postextubation NIV. This information about teamwork in the ICU, suggestions for interprofessional education, and barriers and facilitators to use of a target evidence-based practice can inform the development of novel educational strategies in ways that increase acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention.

Rationale and design of the Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: The "PRONE" Study.

While benefits of prone position in mechanically-ventilated patients have been well-described, a randomized-control trial to determine the effects of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously-breathing patients with an acute pneumonia has not been previously conducted. Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-Intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: the "PRONE" Study (PRONE) was conducted in non-intubated hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia as defined by respiratory rate ≥ 20/min or an oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) ≤ 93% without supplemental oxygen [1]. The PRONE trial was designed to investigate the effects of prone positioning on need for escalation in respiratory support, as defined by need for transition to a higher acuity level of care, increased fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), or the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary objectives were to assess the duration of effect of prone positioning on respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate and SpO2, as well as other outcomes such as time to discharge or transition in level of care.

Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

Impact of Bamlanivimab Monoclonal Antibody Treatment on Hospitalization and Mortality Among Nonhospitalized Adults With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody treatment may prevent complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy on hospitalization and mortality among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications. METHODS: In this observational study we compared outpatients who received bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody from December 9, 2020 to March 3, 2021 to nontreated patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction or antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the same period who were eligible for monoclonal antibody treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization or all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization. The risk-adjusted odds of study outcomes comparing bamlanivimab treated and untreated patients was determined using 1:5 propensity matching and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 232 patients receiving bamlanivimab matched with 1160 comparator patients, the mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and 196 (14%) of patients experienced hospitalization or mortality. After adjustment for propensity to receive treatment, bamlanivimab treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk-adjusted odds of hospitalization or mortality within 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.24-0.69; P < .001). Bamlanivimab treatment was also associated with a significantly lower risk adjusted odds of hospitalization or emergency department visit without hospitalization (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82; P = .004). The results were most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older. CONCLUSIONS: Bamlanivimab monoclonal antibody monotherapy was associated with reduced hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.Use of bamlanivimab monotherapy for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection was associated with reductions in hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days. Benefit was strongest in those age 65 years or older.

The UPMC OPTIMISE-C19 (OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monoclonal antIbodieS through Evaluation for COVID-19) trial: a structured summary of a study protocol for an open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. TRIAL DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization PARTICIPANTS: We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable - e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. RANDOMISATION: We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786 . Registered March 10, 2021 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Perceptions of Hyperoxemia and Conservative Oxygen Therapy in the Management of Acute Respiratory Failure.

Rationale: Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often managed to maximize oxygenation, yet hyperoxemia may be deleterious to some. Little is known about how ICU providers weigh tradeoffs between hypoxemia and hyperoxemia when managing acute respiratory failure. Objectives: To define ICU providers' mental models for managing oxygenation for patients with acute respiratory failure and identify barriers and facilitators to conservative oxygen therapy. Methods: In two large U.S. tertiary care hospitals, we performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ICU nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians. We assessed perceptions of oxygenation management, hyperoxemia, and conservative oxygen therapies through interviews, which we audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analyzed transcripts for representative themes using an iterative thematic-analysis approach. Results: We interviewed 10 nurses, 10 respiratory therapists, 4 fellows, and 5 attending physicians before reaching thematic saturation. Major themes included perceptions of hyperoxemia, attitudes toward conservative oxygen therapy, and aspects of titrated-oxygen-therapy implementation. Many providers did not recognize the term "hyperoxemia," whereas others described a poor understanding; several stated they never encounter hyperoxemia clinically. Concerns about hyperoxemia varied: some providers believed that typical ventilation strategies emphasizing progressive lowering of the fraction of inspired oxygen mitigated worries about excess oxygen administration, whereas others maintained that hyperoxemia is harmful only to patients with chronic lung disease. Almost all interviewees expressed familiarity with lower oxygen saturations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cited barriers to conservative oxygen therapy included concerns about hypoxemia, particularly among nurses and respiratory therapists; perceptions that hyperoxemia is not harmful; and a lack of clear evidence supporting conservative oxygen therapy. Interviewees suggested that interprofessional education and convincing clinical trial evidence could facilitate uptake of conservative oxygenation. Conclusions: This study describes attitudes toward hyperoxemia and conservative oxygen therapy. These preferences and uncertain benefits and risks of conservative oxygen therapy should be considered during future implementation efforts. Successful oxygen therapy implementation most likely will require 1) improving awareness of hyperoxemia's effects, 2) normalizing lower saturations in patients without chronic lung disease, 3) addressing ingrained beliefs regarding oxygen management and oxygen's safety, and 4) using interprofessional education to obtain buy-in across providers and inform the ICU team.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Pbx4 limits heart size and fosters arch artery formation by partitioning second heart field progenitors and restricting proliferation.

Vertebrate heart development requires the integration of temporally distinct differentiating progenitors. However, few signals are understood that restrict the size of the later-differentiating outflow tract (OFT). We show that improper specification and proliferation of second heart field (SHF) progenitors in zebrafish lazarus (lzr) mutants, which lack the transcription factor Pbx4, produces enlarged hearts owing to an increase in ventricular and smooth muscle cells. Specifically, Pbx4 initially promotes the partitioning of the SHF into anterior progenitors, which contribute to the OFT, and adjacent endothelial cell progenitors, which contribute to posterior pharyngeal arches. Subsequently, Pbx4 limits SHF progenitor (SHFP) proliferation. Single cell RNA sequencing of nkx2.5+ cells revealed previously unappreciated distinct differentiation states and progenitor subpopulations that normally reside within the SHF and arterial pole of the heart. Specifically, the transcriptional profiles of Pbx4-deficient nkx2.5+ SHFPs are less distinct and display characteristics of normally discrete proliferative progenitor and anterior, differentiated cardiomyocyte populations. Therefore, our data indicate that the generation of proper OFT size and arch arteries requires Pbx-dependent stratification of unique differentiation states to facilitate both homeotic-like transformations and limit progenitor production within the SHF.