Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death Among Immunocompetent Adults During the Omicron Variant Period - IVY Network, 19 U.S. States, February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023.

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.

Real-world Experience of Sotrovimab in High-risk, Immunocompromised COVID-19 Patients.

We completed a real-world analysis of 498 consecutive high-risk nonimmunocompromised and immunocompromised patients who received sotrovimab during the B.1.1.529 surge. Emergency department visits/hospitalizations and 30-day all-cause mortality between the 2 groups were similar. When administered early, sotrovimab is effective at preventing coronavirus disease 2019 progression in immunocompromised and nonimmunocompromised patients.

Progression to Critical Illness and Death in Patients With Breakthrough Hospitalizations.

Background: Characterization of disease progression and outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated individuals is limited. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of symptomatic vaccinated (cases) and unvaccinated (controls) participants hospitalized for COVID-19 between December 30, 2020, and September 30, 2021, in Southeast Michigan. Hospitalized adult patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 were identified through daily census report. Breakthrough infection was defined as detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ≥14 days after completion of the primary vaccination series. The association between prior vaccination and critical COVID-19 illness (composite of intensive care unit [ICU] admission, invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], 28-day mortality) was examined. Results: Two hundred ten (39%) fully vaccinated and 325 (61%) unvaccinated patients were evaluated. Compared with controls, cases were older, had more comorbidities (4 [3-7] vs 2 [1-4]; P < .001), and were more likely to be immunocompromised. Cases had less severe symptoms compared with controls (2 [1-2] vs 2 [2-3]; P < .001) and were less likely to progress to critical COVID-19 illness (33.3% vs 45.5%; P < .001); 28-day mortality was significantly lower in cases (11.0% vs 24.9%; P < .001). Symptom severity (odds ratio [OR], 2.59; 95% CI, 1.61-4.16; P < .001) and modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on presentation (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.48-2.06; P < .001) were independently associated with development of critical COVID-19 illness. Prior vaccination (OR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.307-0.910; P = .020) was protective. Conclusions: COVID-19-vaccinated patients were less likely to develop critical COVID-19 illness and more likely to survive. Disease severity at presentation was a predictor of adverse outcomes regardless of vaccination status.

Real-World Experience of Sotrovimab in High-Risk, Immunocompromised COVID-19 Patients

We completed a real-world analysis of 498 consecutive high-risk non-immunocompromised and immunocompromised patients who received sotrovimab during B.1.1.529 surge. Emergency department visits/hospitalizations and 30-day all-cause mortality between the two groups were similar. Sotrovimab is an effective therapy when administered early in preventing COVID-19 disease progression in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised patients.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies for COVID-19: Outcomes for bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab combination in a racially diverse cohort of patients with significant comorbidities.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (MAB) including bamlanivimab (BAM) and bamlanivimab/etesevimab (BAM/E) have shown reduced hospitalization rates for non-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in clinical trials. Recent data have provided real-world hospitalization rates for high-risk patients treated with BAM, however, data on a similar cohort treated with BAM/E are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated outpatients ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed mild/moderate COVID-19 who received MAB from 1 December 2020 to 19 April 2021. Use of BAM monotherapy changed to BAM/E combination on 27 March 2021. Primary outcome was overall rate of COVID-19 related-hospitalization, including comparison of hospitalization rates between MAB-formulation groups. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The population included 643 patients (BAM and BAM/E); median age was 58 years, 43% were male, median BMI was 33 kg/m2 , and 24% self-identified as Black. Patients in the BAM/E combination group were significantly younger with higher median BMI and a longer time from symptom onset to infusion. The incidence of 30-day COVID-19 related hospitalization was similar between patients receiving either BAM or BAM/E combination (7.8% and 7.2%, respectively). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study represents the first such publication of real-world BAM/E hospitalization outcomes. Hospitalization rates utilizing BAM/E were comparable to BAM in our real-world study.

Risk Factors Associated With Hospitalization and Death in COVID-19 Breakthrough Infections.

Background: Characterizations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine breakthrough infections are limited. We aim to characterize breakthrough infections and identify risk factors associated with outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective case series of consecutive fully vaccinated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a multicenter academic center in Southeast Michigan, between December 30, 2020, and September 15, 2021. Results: A total of 982 patients were identified; the mean age was 57.9 years, 565 (59%) were female, 774 (79%) were White, and 255 (26%) were health care workers (HCWs). The median number of comorbidities was 2; 225 (23%) were immunocompromised. BNT162b2 was administered to 737 (75%) individuals. The mean time to SARS-CoV-2 detection was 135 days. The majority were asymptomatic or exhibited mild to moderate disease, 154 (16%) required hospitalization, 127 (13%) had severe-critical illness, and 19 (2%) died. Age (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001), cardiovascular disease (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.55-5.89; P = .001), and immunocompromised status (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.70-3.90; P < .001) were independent risk factors for hospitalization. Additionally, age (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .006) was significantly associated with mortality. HCWs (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.50; P = .002) were less likely to be hospitalized, and prior receipt of BNT162b2 was associated with lower odds of hospitalization (OR, 0.436; 95% CI, 0.303-0.626; P < .001) and/or death (OR, 0.360; 95% CI, 0.145-0.898; P = .029). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines remain effective at attenuating disease severity. However, patients with breakthrough infections necessitating hospitalization may benefit from early treatment modalities and COVID-19-mitigating strategies, especially in areas with substantial or high transmission rates.

Impact of Early Corticosteroids on Preventing Clinical Deterioration in Non-critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: While guidelines stronglyrecommend dexamethasone in critical COVID-19, the optimal threshold to initiate corticosteroids in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Using data from a state-wide COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the effectiveness of early corticosteroids for preventing clinical deterioration among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. METHODS: This was a target trial using observational data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 39 hospitals participating in the MI-COVID19 registry between March 16, 2020 and August 24, 2020. We studied the impact of corticosteroids initiated within 2 calendar days of hospitalization ("early steroids") versus no early steroids among non-ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 receiving non-invasive supplemental oxygen therapy. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, transfer to intensive care, and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score-weighted regression to measure the association of early steroids and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1002 patients meeting study criteria, 231 (23.1%) received early steroids. After IPTW, to balance potential confounders between the treatment groups, early steroids were not associated with a decrease in the composite outcome (aOR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.6) or in any components of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that early corticosteroid therapy prevents clinical deterioration among hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal threshold for initiating corticosteroids in this population.

Low- Versus High-Dose Methylprednisolone in Adult Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Less Is More.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids use in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) improves survival; however, the optimal dose is not established. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving high-dose corticosteroids (HDC) versus low-dose corticosteroids (LDC). METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted at a large, quaternary care center in Michigan. A corticosteroid dose change was implemented in the standardized institutional treatment protocol on November 17, 2020. All patients admitted with severe COVID-19 that received corticosteroids were included. Consecutive patients in the HDC group (September 1 to November 15, 2020) were compared to the LDC group (November 30, 2020 to January 20, 2021). High-dose corticosteroids was defined as 80 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses, and LDC was defined as 32-40 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression to mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge on supplemental oxygen, and corticosteroid-associated adverse events. RESULTS: Four-hundred seventy patients were included: 218 (46%) and 252 (54%) in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality (14.5% vs 13.5%, P = .712). This finding remained intact when controlling for additional variables (odds ratio, 0.947; confidence interval, 0.515-1.742; P = .861). Median hospital LOS was 6 and 5 days in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively (P < .001). No differences were noted in any of the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose methylprednisolone had comparable outcomes including mortality to high-dose methylprednisolone for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

Low versus High Dose Methylprednisolone in Adult Patients with COVID-19: Less is More

Background Corticosteroids use in severe COVID-19 improves survival;however, the optimal dose is not established. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving high-dose corticosteroids (HDC) versus low-dose corticosteroids (LDC). Methods This was a quasi-experimental study conducted at a large, quaternary care center in Michigan. A corticosteroid dose change was implemented in the standardized institutional treatment protocol on 17 November 2020. All patients admitted with severe COVID-19 that received corticosteroids were included. Consecutive patients in the HDC group (1 September to 15 November 2020) were compared to the LDC group (30 November 2020 to 20 January 2021). HDC was defined as methylprednisolone 80 mg daily in two divided doses and LDC was defined as methylprednisolone 32-40 mg daily in two divided doses. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression to mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge on supplemental oxygen, and corticosteroid-associated adverse events. Results Four-hundred and seventy patients were included;218 (46%) and 252 (54%) in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality (14.5% vs 13.5%, p=0.712). This finding remained intact when controlling for additional variables (OR 0.947, [CI 0.515-1.742], p=0.861). Median hospital LOS was 6 and 5 days in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively (p<0.001). No differences were noted in any of the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions Low-dose methylprednisolone had comparable outcomes including mortality to high-dose methylprednisolone for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Solid Organ Transplant: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant reductions in transplantation, motivated in part by concerns of disproportionately more severe disease among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, clinical features, outcomes, and predictors of mortality in SOT recipients are not well described. METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of SOT recipients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected using standardized intake and 28-day follow-up electronic case report forms. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for the primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, among hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-two SOT recipients from >50 transplant centers were included: 318 (66%) kidney or kidney/pancreas, 73 (15.1%) liver, 57 (11.8%) heart, and 30 (6.2%) lung. Median age was 58 (interquartile range [IQR] 46-57), median time post-transplant was 5 years (IQR 2-10), 61% were male, and 92% had ≥1 underlying comorbidity. Among those hospitalized (376 [78%]), 117 (31%) required mechanical ventilation, and 77 (20.5%) died by 28 days after diagnosis. Specific underlying comorbidities (age >65 [adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-5.5, P < .001], congestive heart failure [aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.0, P = .004], chronic lung disease [aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.2, P = .018], obesity [aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.4, P = .039]) and presenting findings (lymphopenia [aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.5, P = .033], abnormal chest imaging [aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1-7.5, P = .027]) were independently associated with mortality. Multiple measures of immunosuppression intensity were not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality among SOT recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 20.5%. Age and underlying comorbidities rather than immunosuppression intensity-related measures were major drivers of mortality.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of treatment options against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on patients ≥18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS-CoV-2. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Twenty-nine studies with 5207 patients were included. Pooled all-cause mortality in intervention arm was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1%-17.4%). Mortality was significantly higher for studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for intervention (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Adverse events were also higher in HCQ subgroup (OR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.60-9.45). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. There is a need for well-designed randomized clinical trials for further investigation of every therapeutic intervention for further insight into different therapeutic options.

Rapid Reorganization of an Academic Infectious Diseases Program During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Detroit: A Novel Unit-based Group Rounding Model.

The surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations at our 877-bed quaternary care hospital in Detroit led to an emergent demand for Infectious Diseases (ID) consultations. The traditional 1-on-1 consultation model was untenable. Therefore, we rapidly restructured our ID division to provide effective consultative services. We implemented a novel unit-based group rounds model that focused on delivering key updates to teams and providing unit-wide consultations simultaneously to all team members. Effectiveness of the program was studied using Likert-scale survey data. The survey captured data from the first month of the Detroit COVID-19 pandemic. During this period there were approximately 950 patients hospitalized for treatment of COVID-19. The survey of trainees and faculty reported an overall 95% positive response to delivery of information, new knowledge acquisition, and provider confidence in the care of COVID-19 patients. This showed that the unit-based consult model is a sustainable effort to provide care during epidemics.

COVID-19: disease pathways and gene expression changes predict methylprednisolone can improve outcome in severe cases.

MOTIVATION: COVID-19 has several distinct clinical phases: a viral replication phase, an inflammatory phase, and in some patients, a hyper-inflammatory phase. High mortality is associated with patients developing cytokine storm syndrome. Treatment of hyper-inflammation in these patients using existing, approved therapies with proven safety profiles could address the immediate need to reduce mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed the changes in the gene expression, pathways and putative mechanisms induced by SARS-CoV2 in NHBE, and A549 cells, as well as COVID-19 lung vs. their respective controls. We used these changes to identify FDA approved drugs that could be repurposed to help COVID-19 patients with severe symptoms related to hyper-inflammation. We identified methylprednisolone (MP) as a potential leading therapy. The results were then confirmed in five independent validation data sets including Vero E6 cells, lung and intestinal organoids, as well as additional patient lung sample vs. their respective controls. Finally, the efficacy of MP was validated in an independent clinical study. Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred at a significantly lower rate in the MP-treated group compared to control group (29.6% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.027). Clinical results confirmed the in silico prediction that MP could improve outcomes in severe cases of COVID-19. A low number needed to treat (NNT = 5) suggests MP may be more efficacious than dexamethasone or hydrocortisone. AVAILABILITY: iPathwayGuide is available at https://ipathwayguide.advaitabio.com/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.