Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines and U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 changed frequently as different SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early outpatient treatment with mAbs, overall and by mAb product, presumed SARS-CoV-2 variant, and immunocompromised status, is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days. DESIGN: Hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial from observational data comparing mAb-treated patients with a propensity score-matched, nontreated control group. SETTING: Large U.S. health care system. PARTICIPANTS: High-risk outpatients eligible for mAb treatment under any EUA with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result from 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. INTERVENTION: Single-dose intravenous mAb treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, sotrovimab, bebtelovimab, or intravenous or subcutaneous casirivimab-imdevimab administered within 2 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days among treated patients versus a nontreated control group (no treatment or treatment ≥3 days after SARS-CoV-2 test date). RESULTS: The risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days was 4.6% in 2571 treated patients and 7.6% in 5135 nontreated control patients (risk ratio [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74]). In sensitivity analyses, the corresponding RRs for 1- and 3-day treatment grace periods were 0.59 and 0.49, respectively. In subgroup analyses, those receiving mAbs when the Alpha and Delta variants were presumed to be predominant had estimated RRs of 0.55 and 0.53, respectively, compared with 0.71 for the Omicron variant period. Relative risk estimates for individual mAb products all suggested lower risk for hospitalization or death. Among immunocompromised patients, the RR was 0.45 (CI, 0.28 to 0.71). LIMITATIONS: Observational study design, SARS-CoV-2 variant presumed by date rather than genotyping, no data on symptom severity, and partial data on vaccination status. CONCLUSION: Early mAb treatment among outpatients with COVID-19 is associated with lower risk for hospitalization or death for various mAb products and SARS-CoV-2 variants. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Evaluation of Newly Integrated Bivalirudin Titration Protocol in Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cardiogenic shock or end-stage heart failure can be maintained on mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. Once a patient undergoes placement of a device, obtaining and maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation is vital. Guidelines recommend the use of institutional protocols to assist in dosing and titration of anticoagulants. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of bivalirudin before and after the implementation of a standardized titration protocol in patients with MCS. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received bivalirudin for MCS (VA ECMO [veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation], Impella, or LVAD [left ventricular assist device]) before and after the implementation of the titration protocol into the electronic health record (EHR) was conducted. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). Secondary outcomes included number of subtherapeutic and supratherapeutic aPTTs, incidence of bleeding and clotting events, bivalirudin titrations per day, and percentage of patients with therapeutic aPTT level. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included (precohort = 67; postcohort = 33). The proportion of therapeutic aPTTs was significantly higher in the postcohort than that in the precohort (62% vs 48%; P < 0.001). The postcohort had 0% of patients failing to achieve therapeutic aPTT levels. The number of titrations per day was significantly lower in the postcohort, with 1.20 titrations per day versus 1.93 in the precohort (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the bivalirudin titration nomograms within the EHR significantly increased the number of therapeutic aPTTs, reduced the number of patients who never achieved a therapeutic aPTT, and reduced the required number of titrations per day.

Outcomes of systemic bivalirudin and sodium bicarbonate purge solution for Impella 5.5.

BACKGROUND: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed; Danvers, MA) (IMP5) is a commonly used, surgically implanted, tMCS device that requires systemic anticoagulation and purge solution to avoid pump failure. To avoid heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) from unfractionated heparin (UFH) use, our program has explored the utility of bivalirudin (BIV) for systemic anticoagulation and sodium bicarbonate-dextrose purge solution (SBPS) in IMP5.5. METHODS: This single center, retrospective study included 34 patients supported on IMP5.5 with BIV based AC and SBPS between December 1st 2020 to December 1st 2021.The efficacy and safety end points were incidence of development of HIT, Tissue Plasminogen Activator (tPA) use for suspected pump thrombosis, stroke, and device failure as well as clinically significant bleeding. RESULTS: The median duration of IMP5.5 support was 9.8 days (IQR: 6-15). Most patients were bridged to HTX (58%) followed by recovery (27%) and LVAD implantation (15%). Patients were therapeutic on bivalirudin for 64% of their IMP5.5 support. One patient (2.9%) suffered from ischemic stroke and 26.5% (9) patients developed clinically significant bleeding. tPA was administered to 7(21%) patients. One patient in the entire cohort developed HIT. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience supports the use of systemic BIV and SBPS as a method to avoid heparin exposure in a patient population predisposed to the development of HIT.

Duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and phenotype of post-cardiac arrest brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest have variable severity of primary hypoxic ischemic brain injury (HIBI). Signatures of primary HIBI on brain imaging and electroencephalography (EEG) include diffuse cerebral edema and burst suppression with identical bursts (BSIB). We hypothesize distinct phenotypes of primary HIBI are associated with increasing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) duration. METHODS: We identified from our prospective registry of both in-and out-of-hospital CA patients treated between January 2010 to January 2020 for this cohort study. We abstracted CPR duration, neurological examination, initial brain computed tomography gray to white ratio (GWR), and initial EEG pattern. We considered four phenotypes on presentation: awake; comatose with neither BSIB nor cerebral edema (non-malignant coma); BSIB; and cerebral edema (GWR ≤ 1.20). BSIB and cerebral edema were considered as non-mutually exclusive outcomes. We generated predicted probabilities of brain injury phenotype using localized regression. RESULTS: We included 2,440 patients, of whom 545 (23%) were awake, 1,065 (44%) had non-malignant coma, 548 (23%) had BSIB and 438 (18%) had cerebral edema. Only 92 (4%) had both BSIB and edema. Median CPR duration was 16 [IQR 8-28] minutes. Median CPR duration increased in a stepwise manner across groups: awake 6 [3-13] minutes; non-malignant coma 15 [8-25] minutes; BSIB 21 [13-31] minutes; cerebral edema 32 [22-46] minutes. Predicted probability of phenotype changes over time. CONCLUSIONS: Brain injury phenotype is related to CPR duration, which is a surrogate for severity of HIBI. The sequence of most likely primary HIBI phenotype with progressively longer CPR duration is awake, coma without BSIB or edema, BSIB, and finally cerebral edema.

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.

Evaluation of Bebtelovimab for Treatment of Covid-19 During the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Era.

Background: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment is associated with decreased risk of hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. Bebtelovimab exhibits in vitro activity against the Omicron variant and its sublineages; however, clinical data are lacking. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing bebtelovimab-treated patients with propensity score-adjusted and matched nontreated control groups. Participants included high-risk outpatients eligible for bebtelovimab treatment under Emergency Use Authorization with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test from March 30 to May 28, 2022. Treated patients received single-dose intravenous treatment with bebtelovimab. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death over 28 days. Results: Before matching/statistical adjustment, mAb-treated patients were, on average, 10 years older than nontreated patients (61.6 vs 51.3 years) and had higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, cancer, organ or cell transplant, and immunocompromised status (standardized mean differences ≥0.20). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of hospitalization or death comparing 1006 treated with 2023 nontreated patients was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.80). Among 930 treated and 930 propensity score-matched nontreated patients, the incidence of hospitalization or death was 3.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (conditional OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86). The lower odds ratio of hospitalization or death associated with bebtelovimab treatment was most evident in older patients, those with immunocompromised status, and fully vaccinated patients. Conclusions: Monoclonal antibody treatment with bebtelovimab among COVID-19 outpatients is associated with lower odds of hospitalization or death, particularly among immunocompromised and older patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Establishing a Distribution Network for COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Across a Large Health System During a Global Pandemic.

Emergency authorized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can aid outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Many report barriers to adequate distribution and uptake. We present our model for distribution in a large health system as well as early lessons learned.

Emergency department implementation of monoclonal antibody infusion for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: A template for rapid deployment.

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy can improve coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes when infused early in select patients. We sought to rapidly create and implement a program for emergency department (ED) mAb infusion to aid care. Using multiple strategies and actions-education, selection criteria, screening tools, rapid testing, compounding, and delivery-we infused 832 ED patients with a mAb. The screening tool identified 94.5% of these patients as potential candidates. Length of stay was nearly identical for patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 versus those requiring testing. Mild adverse reactions occurred in 2.3% of mAb infusions, and severe reactions occurred in 0.5% of infusions. We highlight a strategic approach for using the ED as a key coronavirus disease 2019 therapeutic site for this intervention and with high utility and low disruption.

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.

Challenges in the development and implementation of a healthcare system based extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) program for the treatment of out of hospital cardiac arrest.

INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) can treat cardiac arrest refractory to conventional therapies. Many institutions are interested in developing their own ECPR program. However, there may be challenges in logistics and implementation. AIMS: The aim of our protocol was to demonstrate that an ECPR team was feasible within our healthcare system and that the identification of UPMC Presbyterian as a receiving center allowed for successful treatment within 30 min from EMS dispatch. METHODS: We developed out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) ECPR protocols for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), EMS communications, and our in-hospital ECPR team. Inclusion criteria indentified patients with a potentially reversible arrest etiology and high probability of recoverable brain injury using a simple checklist: witnessed collapse, layperson CPR, initial shockable rhythm, and age 18-60 years. We trained local EMS crews to screen patients and reviewed the criteria with a Medic Command Physician prior to transport to our hospital. RESULTS: From October 2015 to March 31st 2018, EMS treated 1165 EMS OHCA cases, transported 664 (57%) to a local hospital, and transported 120 (10%) to our institution. Of these, five (4.1%) patients underwent ECPR. Among excluded cases, 64 (53%) had nonshockable rhythms, 48 (40%) were unwitnessed arrests, 50 (42%) were over age 60 and the remaining 20 (17%) had no documented reasons for exclusion. For ECPR cases, median pre-hospital CPR duration was 26 [IQR 25-40] min. Four patients (80%) received mechanical CPR. Interval from arrest to arrival on scene was 5 [IQR 4-6] min and interval from radio call to activation of ECPR was 13 [IQR 7-21] min. Interval from EMS dispatch to departure from scene was 20 [IQR 19-21] min. Time from EMS dispatch to initiation of ECPR was 63 [IQR 59-69] min. CONCLUSIONS: ECPR is an infrequent occurrence in EMS practice. Most apparently eligible patients did not get ECPR, highlighting the need for ongoing programmatic development, provider education, and qualitative work exploring barriers to implementation.

Performance of Anti-Factor Xa Versus Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time for Heparin Monitoring Using Multiple Nomograms.

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of anti-factor Xa concentration versus activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) monitoring with multiple indication-specific heparin nomograms. This was a prospective, nonrandomized study with historical control at a large academic medical center. A total of 201 patients who received intravenous heparin in the cardiology units were included. The prospective cohort included patients (n = 101) with anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) monitoring, and the historical control group included patients (n = 100) who had aPTT monitoring. Patients in the prospective group had both anti-Xa and aPTT samples drawn, but anti-Xa was used for dosing adjustment. The anti-Xa cohort achieved a significantly faster time to therapeutic range ( P < .01) and required fewer dose adjustments per 24-hour period compared to the aPTT control ( P = .01). Results were consistent across heparin nomograms. The overall discordance rate between the 2 tests was 49%. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed. In summary, anti-Xa monitoring improved the time to therapeutic anticoagulation and led to fewer dose adjustments compared to the aPTT with multiple indication-based heparin nomograms.

Ambiguity and workarounds as contributors to medical error.

Why are some organizations error-prone-regularly subject to interruptions and inconveniences, some of which periodically coalesce catastrophically-whereas other organizations, although similar in the products and services they generate and the process technologies they use, are reliable, adaptable, and continuously self-improving, relentlessly learning from experience to get ever better? Analyzing medical error reports and studies of high-performing, non-health care organizations reveals 2 differences. High performers know how to prevent problems from producing further consequences once they occur and how to prevent their recurrence. They do this by specifying how work is expected to proceed-who will do what for whom, with what purpose, when, where, and how-before work is actually done. Then, when anything contrary to expectations occurs, it is immediately identified as a problem. Through this approach, the effects of problems are contained, the causes are quickly investigated, process knowledge is deepened, and recurrence is prevented. In contrast, error-prone organizations tolerate ambiguity, a prevailing lack of clarity over what is supposed to happen at any given time. Problems are thus hard to identify, and, even when recognized, they are worked around. People "get the job done," but don't initiate efforts to learn from the problem or improve the process. We believe that coupling high degrees of specification with rapid responses to individual problems can improve health care. Superlative manufacturing, service, and military organizations apply this approach to myriad processes and situations, and initial health care trials of this approach have been promising. We discuss how such an approach could be initiated in health care more broadly.

The prognostic significance of troponin I elevation in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: The significance of cardiac troponin I (TnI) levels in patients with acute ischemic stroke remains unclear. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 1718 patients with acute ischemic stroke (2009-2010). Patients with positive TnI (peak TnI ≥0.1 µg/L) were assigned to the myocardial infarction (MI) group if they met diagnostic criteria. The remaining patients with positive TnI were assigned to the no-MI group. Patients were followed up for 1.4 ± 1.1 years. Primary outcome was inhospital and long-term all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Positive TnI was present in 309 patients (18%), 119 of whom (39%) were classified as having MI. Positive TnI was independently associated with older age, hypertension, smoking, peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, higher systolic blood pressure, higher serum creatinine, and lower heart rate (P < .01). Patients with MI had the highest inpatient mortality (P < .001) and the lowest survival rate by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P < .0001). Peak TnI greater than or equal to 0.5 µg/L, particularly if satisfying criteria for MI, was independently associated with long-term mortality (P < .0001); peak TnI less than 0.5 µg/L alone was not when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSION: Positive TnI greater than or equal to 0.5 µg/L in patients with acute ischemic stroke was independently associated with worse outcomes. Patients with diagnosis of MI represent a particularly high-risk subgroup.

Pharmacotherapy update on the use of vasopressors and inotropes in the intensive care unit.

This paper summarizes the pharmacologic properties of vasoactive medications used in the treatment of shock, including the inotropes and vasopressors. The clinical application of these therapies is discussed and recent studies describing their use and associated outcomes are also reported. Comprehension of hemodynamic principles and adrenergic and non-adrenergic receptor mechanisms are salient to the appropriate therapeutic utility of vasoactive medications for shock. Vasoactive medications can be classified based on their direct effects on vascular tone (vasoconstriction or vasodilation) and on the heart (presence or absence of positive inotropic effects). This classification highlights key similarities and differences with respect to pharmacology and hemodynamic effects. Vasopressors include pure vasoconstrictors (phenylephrine and vasopressin) and inoconstrictors (dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine). Each of these medications acts as vasopressors to increase mean arterial pressure by augmenting vascular tone. Inotropes include inodilators (dobutamine and milrinone) and the aforementioned inoconstrictors. These medications act as inotropes by enhancing cardiac output through enhanced contractility. The inodilators also reduce afterload from systemic vasodilation. The relative hemodynamic effect of each agent varies depending on the dose administered, but is particularly apparent with dopamine. Recent large-scale clinical trials have evaluated vasopressors and determined that norepinephrine may be preferred as a first-line therapy for a broad range of shock states, most notably septic shock. Consequently, careful selection of vasoactive medications based on desired pharmacologic effects that are matched to the patient's underlying pathophysiology of shock may optimize hemodynamics while reducing the potential for adverse effects.