Patient and Provider Experiences and Views on the Use of Telehealth in Genetics Clinics in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: The 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated a mass transition in genetics clinics nationwide from in-person care to virtual care through telehealth. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was limited research on the use of telehealth in genetics specialties. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity to study this emerging mode of care delivery in the setting of genetics clinics. This study described the scope of telehealth use in genetics clinics nationally and determined how COVID-19 influenced patients' decisions regarding their genetic care. Methods: Two anonymous surveys for patients and providers were developed. The patient survey was offered online to all genetics patients seen through telehealth at a Manhattan-based practice between March and December 2020. The provider survey was distributed through several listservs to genetics providers nationwide. Results: Patients (n = 242) and providers (n = 150) responded. Telehealth was used in all specialty genetics clinics for both initial and follow-up visits. Telehealth was both effective and satisfactory to patients for both visit types and across specialties; however, Asian and Hispanic/Latino patients had significantly lower mean satisfaction scores compared with White patients (p = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). Patients appreciated telehealth for its convenience and to avoid COVID-19 exposure. Providers across specialties and provider types preferred telehealth for follow-up rather than initial visits. Several clinic initiatives related to telehealth were identified. Discussion: Telehealth was generally well received by both patients and providers, and is expected to become permanent option in genetics clinics. Further studies are needed to identify barriers to accessing telehealth.

TRPC6 inhibitor (BI 764198) to reduce risk and severity of ARDS due to COVID-19: a phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations, there remains a need to investigate treatments to reduce the risk or severity of potentially fatal complications of COVID-19, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the transient receptor potential channel C6 (TRPC6) inhibitor, BI 764198, in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support (oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal oxygen). METHODS: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase II trial comparing once-daily oral BI 764198 (n=65) with placebo (n=64) for 28 days (+2-month follow-up). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at day 29. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients alive and discharged without oxygen (day 29); occurrence of either in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission or mechanical ventilation (day 29); time to first response (clinical improvement/recovery); ventilator-free days (day 29); and mortality (days 15, 29, 60 and 90). RESULTS: No difference was observed for the primary endpoint: BI 764198 (83.1%) versus placebo (87.5%) (estimated risk difference -5.39%; 95% CI -16.08 to 5.30; p=0.323). For secondary endpoints, a longer time to first response (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99; p=0.045) and longer hospitalisation (+3.41 days; 95% CI 0.49 to 6.34; p=0.023) for BI 764198 versus placebo was observed; no other significant differences were observed. On-treatment adverse events were similar between trial arms and more fatal events were reported for BI 764198 (n=7) versus placebo (n=2). Treatment was stopped early based on an interim observation of a lack of efficacy and an imbalance of fatal events (Data Monitoring Committee recommendation). CONCLUSIONS: TRPC6 inhibition was not effective in reducing the risk and/or severity of ARDS in patients with COVID-19 requiring non-invasive, supplemental oxygen support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04604184.

The TeleKidSeq pilot study: incorporating telehealth into clinical care of children from diverse backgrounds undergoing whole genome sequencing.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced healthcare institutions and many clinical research programs to adopt telehealth modalities in order to mitigate viral spread. With the expanded use of telehealth, there is the potential to increase access to genomic medicine to medically underserved populations, yet little is known about how best to communicate genomic results via telehealth while also ensuring equitable access. NYCKidSeq, a multi-institutional clinical genomics research program in New York City, launched the TeleKidSeq pilot study to assess alternative forms of genomic communication and telehealth service delivery models with families from medically underserved populations. METHODS: We aim to enroll 496 participants between 0 and 21 years old to receive clinical genome sequencing. These individuals have a neurologic, cardiovascular, and/or immunologic disease. Participants will be English- or Spanish-speaking and predominantly from underrepresented groups who receive care in the New York metropolitan area. Prior to enrollment, participants will be randomized to either genetic counseling via videoconferencing with screen-sharing or genetic counseling via videoconferencing without screen-sharing. Using surveys administered at baseline, results disclosure, and 6-months post-results disclosure, we will evaluate the impact of the use of screen-sharing on participant understanding, satisfaction, and uptake of medical recommendations, as well as the psychological and socioeconomic implications of obtaining genome sequencing. Clinical utility, cost, and diagnostic yield of genome sequencing will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: The TeleKidSeq pilot study will contribute to innovations in communicating genomic test results to diverse populations through telehealth technology. In conjunction with NYCKidSeq, this work will inform best practices for the implementation of genomic medicine in diverse, English- and Spanish-speaking populations.

Odds of Hospitalization for COVID-19 After 3 vs 2 Doses of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine by Time Since Booster Dose.

This study assesses the association between COVID-19 mRNA booster immunization compared with vaccination with the primary mRNA vaccination series alone and odds of hospitalization for COVID-19.

Patient experience and healthcare utilization for a COVID-19 telemedicine home monitoring program offered in English and Spanish.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is a vital component of the healthcare system's response to COVID-19. In March of 2020, Providence health system rapidly implemented a telemedicine home monitoring program (HMP) for COVID-19 patients that included use of at-home pulse oximeters and thermometers and text-based surveys to monitor symptoms. By June 2020, Providence updated the HMP to be offered in Spanish. This program was implemented before COVID-19 testing was readily available and therefore was offered to all patients suspected of having COVID-19. This study examines engagement, experience, and utilization patterns for English and Spanish-speaking patients engaged in the COVID-19 HMP. METHODS: A retrospective review of program data was used to understand HMP patient engagement (responsiveness to three daily text to monitor symptoms), satisfaction with the program (likelihood to recommend the program) as well as comfort using home monitoring devices and comfort recovering from home. To understand impact on care for COVID-19 confirmed cases, we used electronic health records to measure patterns in healthcare use for COVID-19 positive HMP participants and non-HMP propensity weighted controls. All patients enrolled in the COVID-19 HMP from March-October 2020 were included in the study. Patients tested for COVID-19 during the time window and not enrolled in HMP were included in the propensity-weighted comparison group. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed overall and stratified by English and Spanish speakers. RESULTS: Of the 4,358 HMP participants, 75.5% identified as English speakers and 18.2% identified as Spanish speakers. There was high level of responsiveness to three daily text-based surveys monitoring symptoms engagement (>80%) and a high level of comfort using the home monitoring devices (thermometers and pulse oximeters) for English- and Spanish-speaking participants (97.3% and 99.6%, respectively). The majority of English (95.7%) and Spanish-speaking (100%) patients felt safe monitoring their condition from home and had high satisfaction with the HMP (76.5% and 83.6%, respectively). English and Spanish-speaking COVID-19 positive HMP participants had more outpatient and emergency departments (ED) encounters than non-participants 7 and 30 days after their positive test. CONCLUSION: This widely implemented HMP provided participants with a sense of safety and satisfaction and its use was associated with more outpatient care and ED encounters. These outcomes were comparable across English and Spanish-speakers, highlighting the importance and potential impact of language-concordant telemedicine.

Remdesivir and Mortality in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The impact of remdesivir (RDV) on mortality rates in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, and the mortality effect in subgroups of baseline disease severity has been incompletely explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of RDV with mortality rates in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we compared persons receiving RDV with those receiving best supportive care (BSC). Patients hospitalized between 28 February and 28 May 2020 with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were included with the development of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest radiography and hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen or oxygen saturation ≤94% with room air. The primary outcome was overall survival, assessed with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression and multivariable adjustment, including calendar time, baseline patient characteristics, corticosteroid use, and random effects for hospital. RESULTS: A total of 1138 patients were enrolled, including 286 who received RDV and 852 treated with BSC, 400 of whom received hydroxychloroquine. Corticosteroids were used in 20.4% of the cohort (12.6% in RDV and 23% in BSC). Comparing persons receiving RDV with those receiving BSC, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death was 0.46 (.31-.69) in the univariate model (P < .001) and 0.60 (.40-.90) in the risk-adjusted model (P = .01). In the subgroup of persons with baseline use of low-flow oxygen, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for death in RDV compared with BSC was 0.63 (.39-1.00; P = .049). CONCLUSION: Treatment with RDV was associated with lower mortality rates than BSC. These findings remain the same in the subgroup with baseline use of low-flow oxygen.

Comparative vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 over time in US hospital administrative data: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests the protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines might wane over time, prompting consideration of booster vaccinations. Data on which vaccines offer the most robust protection over time, and which patients are most vulnerable to attenuating protection, could help inform potential booster programmes. In this study, we used comprehensive hospitalisation data to estimate vaccine effectiveness over time. METHODS: In this case-control study, we used data from a large US health-care system to estimate vaccine effectiveness against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and examined variation based on time since vaccination, vaccine type, and patients' demographic and clinical characteristics. We compared trends in attenuation of protection across vaccines and used a multivariable model to identify key factors associated with risk for severe breakthrough infection. Patients were considered to have severe COVID-19 if they were admitted to the hospital, had a final coded diagnosis of COVID-19 (according to International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision code U07.1) or a positive nucleic acid amplification test for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 during their hospitalisation, and were treated with remdesivir or dexamethasone during hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2021, and Oct 26, 2021, we observed 9667 admissions for severe COVID-19 (ie, cases). Overall, 1293 (13·4%) of 9667 cases were fully vaccinated at the time of admission, compared with 22 308 (57·7%) of 38 668 controls, who were admitted to hospital for other reasons. The median time between vaccination and hospital admission among cases was 162 days (IQR 118-198). Overall vaccine effectiveness declined mostly over the course of the summer, from 94·5% (95% CI 91·4-96·5) in April, 2021 (pre-delta), to 84·0% (81·6-86·1) by October, 2021. Notably, vaccine effectiveness declined over time, from 94·0% (95% CI 92·8-95·0) at days 50-100 after vaccination to 80·4% (77·8-82·7) by days 200-250 after vaccination. After 250 days, vaccine effectiveness declines were even more notable. Among those who received the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, vaccine effectiveness fell from an initial peak of 94·9% (93·2-96·2) to 74·1% (69·6-77·9) by days 200-250 after vaccination. Protection from the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and Ad26.COV2 (Janssen) vaccines declined less over time, although the latter offered lower overall protection. Holding other factors constant, the risk of severe breakthrough infection was most strongly associated with age older than 80 years (adjusted odds ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·43-2·15), vaccine type (Pfizer 1·39, 0·98-1·97; Janssen 14·53, 8·43-25·03; both relative to Moderna), time since vaccination (1·05, 1·03-1·07; per week after week 8 when protection peaks, technically), and comorbidities including organ transplantation (3·44, 95% CI 2·12-5·57), cancer (1·93, 1·60-2·33), and immunodeficiency (1·49, 1·13-1·96). INTERPRETATION: Vaccination remains highly effective against hospitalisation, but vaccine effectiveness declined after 200 days, particularly for older patients or those with specific comorbidities. Additional protection (eg, a booster vaccination) might be warranted for everyone, but especially for these populations. In addition to promoting general vaccine uptake, clinicians and policy makers should consider prioritising booster vaccinations in those most at risk of severe COVID-19. FUNDING: None.

Characteristics and Factors Associated With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection, Hospitalization, and Mortality Across Race and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Data on the characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients disaggregated by race/ethnicity remains limited. We evaluated the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients across racial/ethnic groups and assessed their associations with COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined 629 953 patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a large health system spanning California, Oregon, and Washington between March 1 and December 31, 2020. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were obtained from electronic health records. Odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, and in-hospital death were assessed with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 570 298 patients with known race/ethnicity were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 27.8% were non-White minorities: 54 645 individuals tested positive, with minorities representing 50.1%. Hispanics represented 34.3% of infections but only 13.4% of tests. Although generally younger than White patients, Hispanics had higher rates of diabetes but fewer other comorbidities. A total of 8536 patients were hospitalized and 1246 died, of whom 56.1% and 54.4% were non-White, respectively. Racial/ethnic distributions of outcomes across the health system tracked with state-level statistics. Increased odds of testing positive and hospitalization were associated with all minority races/ethnicities. Hispanic patients also exhibited increased morbidity, and Hispanic race/ethnicity was associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.70). CONCLUSION: Major healthcare disparities were evident, especially among Hispanics who tested positive at a higher rate, required excess hospitalization and mechanical ventilation, and had higher odds of in-hospital mortality despite younger age. Targeted, culturally responsive interventions and equitable vaccine development and distribution are needed to address the increased risk of poorer COVID-19 outcomes among minority populations.

Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" was 14 (95% CI 12-15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11-16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. METHODS: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). RESULTS: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity in vitro and efficacy in animal models of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, and radiologic evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous remdesivir for either 5 days or 10 days. All patients received 200 mg of remdesivir on day 1 and 100 mg once daily on subsequent days. The primary end point was clinical status on day 14, assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: In total, 397 patients underwent randomization and began treatment (200 patients for 5 days and 197 for 10 days). The median duration of treatment was 5 days (interquartile range, 5 to 5) in the 5-day group and 9 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10) in the 10-day group. At baseline, patients randomly assigned to the 10-day group had significantly worse clinical status than those assigned to the 5-day group (P = 0.02). By day 14, a clinical improvement of 2 points or more on the ordinal scale occurred in 64% of patients in the 5-day group and in 54% in the 10-day group. After adjustment for baseline clinical status, patients in the 10-day group had a distribution in clinical status at day 14 that was similar to that among patients in the 5-day group (P = 0.14). The most common adverse events were nausea (9% of patients), worsening respiratory failure (8%), elevated alanine aminotransferase level (7%), and constipation (7%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe Covid-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, our trial did not show a significant difference between a 5-day course and a 10-day course of remdesivir. With no placebo control, however, the magnitude of benefit cannot be determined. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; GS-US-540-5773 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04292899.).

Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.).

First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States.

An outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) that began in Wuhan, China, has spread rapidly, with cases now confirmed in multiple countries. We report the first case of 2019-nCoV infection confirmed in the United States and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management of the case, including the patient's initial mild symptoms at presentation with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness. This case highlights the importance of close coordination between clinicians and public health authorities at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as the need for rapid dissemination of clinical information related to the care of patients with this emerging infection.