Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Distress During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Local Public Health Workers in New York State.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the challenges public health workers have faced is critical to reinforcing, revitalizing, and strengthening the public health workforce. We measured and identified the level and causes of psychological distress among public health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York State. METHODS: We used a knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors survey to ask public health workers at local health departments about their experiences working in public health during the pandemic, including questions relating to harassment from the public, workload, and work/life balance. We used the Kessler-6 scale to measure participants' psychological distress using a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater psychological distress. We calculated descriptive statistics and conducted a regression analysis to determine the factors associated with public health worker psychological distress, and we coded open-ended comments for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: During September 7-20, 2021, 231 public health workers from 38 local health departments completed the survey. Respondents were predominantly non-Hispanic White (89.6%), female (82.1%), full-time employees (95.1%), and located in Upstate New York. On a bivariate level, the strongest predictor of distress was job satisfaction (-0.388), followed closely by COVID-19 fatigue (0.386) and feeling bullied or harassed by the public (0.331). In the regression analysis, 2 additional factors were associated with distress: considering leaving their job due to the pandemic and concerns about exposure. Themes from the qualitative analysis strongly supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the challenges public health workers have faced during the pandemic is critical to inform the actions needed-stronger state laws protecting against harassment, workforce incentives, and commensurate funding-to reinforce and revitalize our frontline public health workforce.

Comparison of antibody response durability of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited comparative immunologic durability data post COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS: Approximately 8.4 months after primary COVID-19 vaccination, 647 healthcare workers completed surveys about COVID-19 vaccinations/infections and blood draws. The groups included participants vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 387), BNT162b2 (n = 212), or Ad26.COV2.S (n = 10) vaccines; unvaccinated participants (n = 10); and participants who received a booster dose (n = 28). The primary outcome was immunoglobin anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based pseudoneutralization) and vaccine effectiveness (VE). Antibody levels were compared using analysis of variance and linear regression. RESULTS: Mean age was 49.7 and 75.3% of the participants were female. Baseline variables were balanced except for immunosuppression, previous COVID-19 infection, and post-primary vaccination time. Unadjusted median (interquartile range [IQR]) anti-spike titers (AU/ml) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated participants, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization was as follows: 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). VE was 87-89% for participants administered mRNA-1273 vaccine, BNT162b2 vaccine, and booster dose, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S (none significantly different). CONCLUSION: Antibody responses 8.4 months after primary vaccination were significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than those observed with BNT162b2.

COVIDMED - An early pandemic randomized clinical trial of losartan treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of losartan for COVID-19 patients. Methods: COVIDMED was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled platform RCT. Enrollees were randomized to standard care plus hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, losartan, or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms were discontinued early. We report losartan data vs. combined (lopinavir-ritonavir and placebo) and prespecified placebo-only controls. The primary endpoint was the mean COVID-19 Ordinal Severity Score (COSS) slope of change. Slow enrollment prompted early termination. Results: Fourteen patients were included in our final analysis (losartan [N = 9] vs. control [N = 5] [lopinavir/ritonavir [N = 2], placebo [N = 3]]). Most baseline parameters were balanced. Losartan treatment was not associated with a difference in mean COSS slope of change vs. combined (p = 0.4) or placebo-only control (p = 0.05) (trend favoring placebo). 60-day mortality and overall AE/SAE rates were insignificantly higher with losartan. Conclusion: In this small RCT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, losartan did not improve outcome and was associated with adverse safety signals.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and political ideation among college students in Central New York: The influence of differential media choice.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is context specific and highly dynamic in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine the underlying causes of COVID-19 vaccine use and hesitancy among students at two colleges in Central New York (USA) in order to better understand how to promote vaccination in this demographic. A Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs & Behaviors survey was designed to measure the relationship between gender, political ideology, media consumption, beliefs, mental health and anxiety, and pandemic-related behaviors. The survey was distributed by email to students in April 2021. Of 8,894 eligible respondents, 627 students completed the survey. Structural Equation Modeling was utilized to explore both direct and indirect relationships. Modeling suggests that the effect of political ideology (being more conservative) is to promote the consumption of right wing news, which in turn tends to increase vaccine hesitancy. Conservative political ideology does not directly lead to vaccine hesitancy, but it does encourage the consumption of news from sources that promote fear and hesitation about the vaccines. News sources significantly contribute to vaccine attitudes among this demographic.

Project ECHO and primary care buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder: Implementation and clinical outcomes.

Background: Our rural health system sought to (1) increase the number of primary care clinicians waivered to prescribe buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) and (2) consequently increase the number of our patients receiving this treatment. Methods: We used the Project for Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO) tele-education model as an implementation strategy. We examined the number of clinicians newly waivered, the number of patients treated with buprenorphine, the relationship between clinician engagement with ECHO training and rates of buprenorphine prescribing, and treatment retention at 180 days. Results: The number of clinicians with a waiver and number of patients treated increased during and after ECHO training. There was a moderate correlation between the number of ECHO sessions attended by a clinician and number of their buprenorphine prescriptions (r = 0.50, p = 0.01). The 180-day retention rate was 80.7%. Conclusions: Project ECHO was highly effective for increasing access to this evidence-based treatment. The high retention rate in this rural context indicates that most patients are increasing their likelihood of favorable outcomes.