Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta and Omicron variant predominance periods: a single-hospital retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Initial reports suggest the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2 causes less severe disease compared with the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant, though more widespread vaccination contributed to these findings. Little is known about clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring intensive care during periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance. AIM: To examine and compare characteristics of critically ill adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of critically ill adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection at one academic hospital in Los Angeles during Delta (15 July 2021-23 September 2021) and Omicron (21 December 2021-27 January 2022) predominance. Patient characteristics were compared between Delta-period and Omicron-period hospitalisations, overall and stratified by vaccination status. RESULTS: 79 adults required intensive care during the Delta predominance period and 116 during the Omicron predominance period. We found similar proportions of intensive care unit admissions occurring in fully vaccinated patients between the two periods, despite Los Angeles County data revealing an almost 60% increase in the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalisations occurring in fully vaccinated persons. There was no difference in the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Among those who required IMV, the median duration of IMV was shorter overall (Delta=18 days; Omicron=8 days; p=0.006) and among unvaccinated persons (Delta=19 days; Omicron=8.5 days; p=0.018). Among unvaccinated persons, the median intensive care unit length of stay was shorter (Delta=12 days; Omicron=5 days; p=0.037) during Omicron predominance. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who died while hospitalised. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-hospital study, critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced less severe respiratory disease during Omicron predominance, likely due to reduced variant-specific virulence. Vaccination likely reduced development of critical illness in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection during Omicron predominance.

Evidence of premature lymphocyte aging in people with low anti-spike antibody levels after BNT162b2 vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have unquestionably blunted the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but host factors such as age, sex, obesity, and other co-morbidities can affect vaccine efficacy. We identified individuals in a relatively healthy population of healthcare workers (CORALE study cohort) who had unexpectedly low peak anti-spike receptor binding domain (S-RBD) antibody levels after receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine. Compared to matched controls, "low responders" had fewer spike-specific antibody-producing B cells after the second and third/booster doses. Moreover, their spike-specific T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire had less depth and their CD4+ and CD8+T cell responses to spike peptide stimulation were less robust. Single cell transcriptomic evaluation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells revealed activation of aging pathways in low responder B and CD4+T cells that could underlie their attenuated anti-S-RBD antibody production. Premature lymphocyte aging may therefore contribute to a less effective humoral response and could reduce vaccination efficacy.

Seriously Ill Patients' Prioritized Goals and Their Clinicians' Perceptions of Those Goals.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goals are understood by their clinicians are likely better positioned to receive goal-concordant care. OBJECTIVES: To examine the proportion of seriously ill patients whose prioritized healthcare goal is accurately perceived by their clinician and identify factors associated with accurate perception. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness and their clinicians. Approximately two weeks after a clinic visit, patients reported their current prioritized healthcare goal- extending life over relief of pain and discomfort, or relief of pain and discomfort over extending life - and clinicians reported their perception of their patients' current prioritized healthcare goal; matching these items defined accurate perception. RESULTS: Of 252 patients with a prioritized healthcare goal, 60% had their goal accurately perceived by their clinician, 27% were cared for by clinicians who perceived prioritization of the alternative goal, and 13% had their clinician answer unsure. Patients who were older (OR 1.03 per year; 95%CI 1.01, 1.05), had stable goals (OR 2.52; 95%CI 1.26, 5.05), and had a recent goals-of-care discussion (OR 1.78, 95%CI 1.00, 3.16) were more likely to have their goals accurately perceived. CONCLUSION: A majority of seriously ill outpatients are cared for by clinicians who accurately perceive their patients' prioritized healthcare goals. However, a substantial portion are not and may be at higher risk for goal-discordant care. Interventions that facilitate goals-of-care discussions may help align care with goals, as recent discussions were associated with accurate perceptions of patients' prioritized goals.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes Among Adults Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Periods of B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) Variant Predominance - One Hospital, California, July 15-September 23, 2021, and December 21, 2021-January 27, 2022.

In mid-December 2021, the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, surpassed the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant as the predominant strain in California.§ Initial reports suggest that the Omicron variant is more transmissible and resistant to vaccine neutralization but causes less severe illness compared with previous variants (1-3). To describe characteristics of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of Delta and Omicron predominance, clinical characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively abstracted from the electronic health records (EHRs) of adults aged ≥18 years with positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test results admitted to one academic hospital in Los Angeles, California, during July 15-September 23, 2021 (Delta predominant period, 339 patients) and December 21, 2021-January 27, 2022 (Omicron predominant period, 737 patients). Compared with patients during the period of Delta predominance, a higher proportion of adults admitted during Omicron predominance had received the final dose in a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (were fully vaccinated) (39.6% versus 25.1%), and fewer received COVID-19-directed therapies. Although fewer required intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and fewer died while hospitalized during Omicron predominance, there were no significant differences in ICU admission or IMV when stratified by vaccination status. Fewer fully vaccinated Omicron-period patients died while hospitalized (3.4%), compared with Delta-period patients (10.6%). Among Omicron-period patients, vaccination was associated with lower likelihood of ICU admission, and among adults aged ≥65 years, lower likelihood of death while hospitalized. Likelihood of ICU admission and death were lowest among adults who had received a booster dose. Among the first 131 Omicron-period hospitalizations, 19.8% of patients were clinically assessed as admitted for non-COVID-19 conditions. Compared with adults considered likely to have been admitted because of COVID-19, these patients were younger (median age = 38 versus 67 years) and more likely to have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (84.6% versus 61.0%). Although 20% of SARS-CoV-2-associated hospitalizations during the period of Omicron predominance might be driven by non-COVID-19 conditions, large numbers of hospitalizations place a strain on health systems. Vaccination, including a booster dose for those who are fully vaccinated, remains critical to minimizing risk for severe health outcomes among adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Conflicting Orders in Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Forms.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Many older persons with chronic illness use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document portable medical orders for emergency care. However, some POLSTs contain combinations of orders that do not translate into a cohesive care plan (eg, cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] without intensive care, or intensive care without antibiotics). This study characterizes the prevalence and predictors of POLSTs with conflicting orders. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large academic health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3,123 POLST users with chronic life-limiting illness who died between 2010 and 2015 (mean age = 69.7 years). MEASUREMENTS: In a retrospective review of all POLSTs in participants' electronic health records, we describe the prevalence of POLSTs with conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and use clustered logistic regression to evaluate potential predictors of conflicting orders. We also examine the prevalence of conflicts between POLST orders for antibiotics and artificial nutrition with orders for cardiac arrest or medical interventions. RESULTS: Among 3,924 complete POLSTs belonging to 3,123 decedents, 209 (5.3%) POLSTs contained orders to "attempt CPR" paired with orders for "limited interventions" or "comfort measures only"; 745/3169 (23.5%) POLSTs paired orders to restrict antibiotics with orders to deliver non-comfort-only care; and, 170/3098 (5.5%) POLSTs paired orders to withhold artificial nutrition with orders to deliver CPR or intensive care. Among POLSTs with orders to avoid intensive care, orders to attempt CPR were more likely to be present in POLSTs completed earlier in the patient's illness course (adjusted odds ratio = 1.27 per twofold increase in days from POLST to death; 95% confidence interval = 1.18-1.36; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although most POLSTs are actionable by clinicians, 5% had conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and 24% had one or more conflicts between orders for cardiac arrest, medical interventions, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition. These conflicting orders make implementation of POLST challenging for clinicians in acute care settings.

Patient-Reported Receipt of Goal-Concordant Care Among Seriously Ill Outpatients-Prevalence and Associated Factors.

CONTEXT: Goal-concordant care is an important indicator of high-quality care in serious illness. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care among seriously ill outpatients and identify factors associated with the absence of patient-reported goal concordance. METHODS: Analysis of enrollment surveys from a multicenter cluster-randomized trial of outpatients with serious illness. Patients reported their prioritized health care goal and the focus of their current medical care; these items were matched to define receipt of goal-concordant care. RESULTS: Of 405 patients with a prioritized health care goal, 58% reported receipt of goal-concordant care, 17% goal-discordant care, and 25% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patient-reported receipt of goal concordance differed by patient goal. For patients who prioritized extending life, 86% reported goal-concordant care, 2% goal-discordant care, and 12% were uncertain of the focus of their care. For patients who prioritized relief of pain and discomfort, 51% reported goal-concordant care, 21% goal-discordant care, and 28% were uncertain of the focus of their care. Patients who prioritized a goal of relief of pain and discomfort were more likely to report goal-discordant care than patients who prioritized a goal of extending life (relative risk ratio 22.20; 95% CI 4.59, 107.38). CONCLUSION: Seriously ill outpatients who prioritize a goal of relief of pain and discomfort are less likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who prioritize extending life. Future interventions designed to improve receipt of goal-concordant care should focus on identifying patients who prioritize relief of pain and discomfort and promoting care aligned with that goal.

Association of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment With ICU Admission Among Patients Hospitalized Near the End of Life.

Importance: Patients with chronic illness frequently use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document treatment limitations. Objectives: To evaluate the association between POLST order for medical interventions and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients hospitalized near the end of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patients with POLSTs and with chronic illness who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and were hospitalized 6 months or less before death in a 2-hospital academic health care system. Exposures: POLST order for medical interventions ("comfort measures only" vs "limited additional interventions" vs "full treatment"), age, race/ethnicity, education, days from POLST completion to admission, histories of cancer or dementia, and admission for traumatic injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the association between POLST order and ICU admission during the last hospitalization of life; the secondary outcome was receipt of a composite of 4 life-sustaining treatments: mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, dialysis, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For evaluating factors associated with POLST-discordant care, the outcome was ICU admission contrary to POLST order for medical interventions during the last hospitalization of life. Results: Among 1818 decedents (mean age, 70.8 [SD, 14.7] years; 41% women), 401 (22%) had POLST orders for comfort measures only, 761 (42%) had orders for limited additional interventions, and 656 (36%) had orders for full treatment. ICU admissions occurred in 31% (95% CI, 26%-35%) of patients with comfort-only orders, 46% (95% CI, 42%-49%) with limited-interventions orders, and 62% (95% CI, 58%-66%) with full-treatment orders. One or more life-sustaining treatments were delivered to 14% (95% CI, 11%-17%) of patients with comfort-only orders and to 20% (95% CI, 17%-23%) of patients with limited-interventions orders. Compared with patients with full-treatment POLSTs, those with comfort-only and limited-interventions orders were significantly less likely to receive ICU admission (comfort only: 123/401 [31%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.45-0.62]; limited interventions: 349/761 [46%] vs 406/656 [62%], aRR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87]). Across patients with comfort-only and limited-interventions POLSTs, 38% (95% CI, 35%-40%) received POLST-discordant care. Patients with cancer were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without cancer (comfort only: 41/181 [23%] vs 80/220 [36%], aRR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43-0.85]; limited interventions: 100/321 [31%] vs 215/440 [49%], aRR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.51-0.78]). Patients with dementia and comfort-only orders were significantly less likely to receive POLST-discordant care than those without dementia (23/111 [21%] vs 98/290 [34%], aRR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.29-0.67]). Patients admitted for traumatic injury were significantly more likely to receive POLST-discordant care (comfort only: 29/64 [45%] vs 92/337 [27%], aRR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08-2.14]; limited interventions: 51/91 [56%] vs 264/670 [39%], aRR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09-1.68]). In patients with limited-interventions orders, older age was significantly associated with less POLST-discordant care (aRR, 0.93 per 10 years [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with POLSTs and with chronic life-limiting illness who were hospitalized within 6 months of death, treatment-limiting POLSTs were significantly associated with lower rates of ICU admission compared with full-treatment POLSTs. However, 38% of patients with treatment-limiting POLSTs received intensive care that was potentially discordant with their POLST.

Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults.

CONTEXT: Prioritizing among potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate among treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values. OBJECTIVES: To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent. METHODS: Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states. RESULTS: Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared with 69% and 21%, respectively, for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33%, respectively, for patients unsure of their prioritized value (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, preference for CPR in current health was less likely among older patients (odds ratio 0.958 per year; 95% CI 0.935, 0.981) and more likely with better self-perceived health (odds ratio 1.402 per level of health; 95% CI 1.090, 1.804). CONCLUSION: Clinicians face challenges as they clarify patient values and align treatments with values. Patients' values predicted CPR preferences, but a substantial proportion of patients expressed CPR preferences that appeared potentially inconsistent with their primary value. Clinicians should question assumptions about relationships between values and CPR preferences. Further research is needed to identify ways to use values to guide treatment decisions.

Did a Goals-of-Care Discussion Happen? Differences in the Occurrence of Goals-of-Care Discussions as Reported by Patients, Clinicians, and in the Electronic Health Record.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care discussions are associated with improved end-of-life care for patients and therefore may be used as a process measure in quality improvement, research, and reimbursement programs. OBJECTIVES: To examine three methods to assess occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion-patient report, clinician report, and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR)-at a clinic visit for seriously ill patients and determine whether each method is associated with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomized trial, with 494 patients and 124 clinicians caring for them. Self-reported surveys collected from patients and clinicians two weeks after a clinic visit assessed occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion. Documentation of a goals-of-care discussion was abstracted from the EHR. Patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care was assessed by survey two weeks after the visit. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of patients reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the clinic visit; clinicians reported occurrence of a discussion at 66% of visits. EHR documentation occurred in 42% of visits (P < 0.001 for each compared with other two). Patients who reported occurrence of a goals-of-care discussion at the visit were more likely to report receipt of goal-concordant care than patients who reported no discussion (ß 0.441, 95% CI 0.190-0.692; P = 0.001). Neither occurrence of a discussion by clinician report nor by EHR documentation was associated with goal-concordant care. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to assess goals-of-care discussions give differing results, yet each may have advantages. Patient report is most likely to correlate with patient-reported receipt of goal-concordant care.

Trends in Troponin-Only Testing for AMI in Academic Teaching Hospitals and the Impact of Choosing Wisely®.

BACKGROUND: Identifying hospitals that are both early and consistent adopters of high-value care can help shed light on the culture and practices at those institutions that are necessary to promote high-value care nationwide. The use of troponin to diagnose acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and not to test for myoglobin or creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), is a high-value recommendation of the Choosing Wisely® campaign. OBJECTIVE: To examine the variation in cardiac biomarker testing and the effect of the Choosing Wisely® troponin-only recommendation for the diagnosis of AMI. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study using administrative ordering data from Vizient's Clinical Database/Resource Manager. SETTING: Ninety-one academic medical centers from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the third quarter of 2016. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of AMI. INTERVENTION: The Choosing Wisely® recommendation to order troponin-only testing to diagnose AMI was released during the first quarter of 2015. RESULTS: In 19 hospitals, troponin-only testing was consistently ordered to diagnose AMI before the Choosing Wisely® recommendation and throughout the study period. In 34 hospitals, both troponin and myoglobin/CK-MB were ordered to diagnose AMI even after the Choosing Wisely® recommendation. In 26 hospitals with low rates of troponin-only testing before the Choosing Wisely® recommendation, the release of the recommendation was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of troponin-only testing to diagnose AMI. CONCLUSIONS: In institutions with low rates of troponin-only testing prior to the Choosing Wisely® recommendation, the recommendation was associated with a significant increase in the rate of troponin-only testing.

Effects of AgRP inhibition on energy balance and metabolism in rodent models.

Activation of brain melanocortin-4 receptors (MC4-R) by α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH) or inhibition by agouti-related protein (AgRP) regulates food intake and energy expenditure and can modulate neuroendocrine responses to changes in energy balance. To examine the effects of AgRP inhibition on energy balance, a small molecule, non-peptide compound, TTP2515, developed by TransTech Pharma, Inc., was studied in vitro and in rodent models in vivo. TTP2515 prevented AgRP from antagonizing α-MSH-induced increases in cAMP in HEK 293 cells overexpressing the human MC4-R. When administered to rats by oral gavage TTP2515 blocked icv AgRP-induced increases in food intake, weight gain and adiposity and suppression of T4 levels. In both diet-induced obese (DIO) and leptin-deficient mice, TTP2515 decreased food intake, weight gain, adiposity and respiratory quotient. TTP2515 potently suppressed food intake and weight gain in lean mice immediately after initiation of a high fat diet (HFD) but had no effect on these parameters in lean chow-fed mice. However, when tested in AgRP KO mice, TTP2515 also suppressed food intake and weight gain during HFD feeding. In several studies TTP2515 increased T4 but not T3 levels, however this was also observed in AgRP KO mice. TTP2515 also attenuated refeeding and weight gain after fasting, an effect not evident in AgRP KO mice when administered at moderate doses. This study shows that TTP2515 exerts many effects consistent with AgRP inhibition however experiments in AgRP KO mice indicate some off-target effects of this drug. TTP2515 was particularly effective during fasting and in mice with leptin deficiency, conditions in which AgRP is elevated, as well as during acute and chronic HFD feeding. Thus the usefulness of this drug in treating obesity deserves further exploration, to define the AgRP dependent and independent mechanisms by which TTP2515 exerts its effects on energy balance.