Use of a Telemedicine Risk Assessment Tool to Predict the Risk of Hospitalization of 496 Outpatients With COVID-19: Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment of patients with acute COVID-19 in a telemedicine context is not well described. In settings of large numbers of patients, a risk assessment tool may guide resource allocation not only for patient care but also for maximum health care and public health benefit. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine whether a COVID-19 telemedicine risk assessment tool accurately predicts hospitalizations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a COVID-19 telemedicine home monitoring program serving health care workers and the community in Atlanta, Georgia, with enrollment from March 24 to May 26, 2020; the final call range was from March 27 to June 19, 2020. All patients were assessed by medical providers using an institutional COVID-19 risk assessment tool designating patients as Tier 1 (low risk for hospitalization), Tier 2 (intermediate risk for hospitalization), or Tier 3 (high risk for hospitalization). Patients were followed with regular telephone calls to an endpoint of improvement or hospitalization. Using survival analysis by Cox regression with days to hospitalization as the metric, we analyzed the performance of the risk tiers and explored individual patient factors associated with risk of hospitalization. RESULTS: Providers using the risk assessment rubric assigned 496 outpatients to tiers: Tier 1, 237 out of 496 (47.8%); Tier 2, 185 out of 496 (37.3%); and Tier 3, 74 out of 496 (14.9%). Subsequent hospitalizations numbered 3 out of 237 (1.3%) for Tier 1, 15 out of 185 (8.1%) for Tier 2, and 17 out of 74 (23%) for Tier 3. From a Cox regression model with age of 60 years or older, gender, and reported obesity as covariates, the adjusted hazard ratios for hospitalization using Tier 1 as reference were 3.74 (95% CI 1.06-13.27; P=.04) for Tier 2 and 10.87 (95% CI 3.09-38.27; P<.001) for Tier 3. CONCLUSIONS: A telemedicine risk assessment tool prospectively applied to an outpatient population with COVID-19 identified populations with low, intermediate, and high risk of hospitalization.

Subcutaneous sarilumab for the treatment of hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID19 disease: A pragmatic, embedded randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pragmatic, embedded, adaptive trial was to measure the effectiveness of the subcutaneous anti-IL-6R antibody sarilumab, when added to an evolving standard of care (SOC), for clinical management of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease. DESIGN: Two-arm, randomized, open-label controlled trial comparing SOC alone to SOC plus sarilumab. The trial used a randomized play-the-winner design and was fully embedded within the electronic health record (EHR) system. SETTING: 5 VA Medical Centers. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients with clinical criteria for moderate to severe COVID-19 but not requiring mechanical ventilation, and a diagnostic test positive for SARS-CoV-2. INTERVENTIONS: Sarilumab, 200 or 400 mg subcutaneous injection. SOC was not pre-specified and could vary over time, e.g., to include antiviral or other anti-inflammatory drugs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was intubation or death within 14 days of randomization. All data were extracted remotely from the EHR. RESULTS: Among 162 eligible patients, 53 consented, and 50 were evaluated for the primary endpoint of intubation or death. This occurred in 5/20 and 1/30 of participants in the sarilumab and SOC arms respectively, with the majority occurring in the initial 9 participants (3/4 in the sarilumab and 1/5 in the SOC) before the sarilumab dose was increased to 400 mg and before remdesivir and dexamethasone were widely adopted. After interim review, the unblinded Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the study be stopped due to concern for safety: a high probability that rates of intubation or death were higher with addition of sarilumab to SOC (92.6%), and a very low probability (3.4%) that sarilumab would be found to be superior. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized trial of patients hospitalized due to respiratory compromise from COVID-19 but not mechanical ventilation found no benefit from subcutaneous sarilumab when added to an evolving SOC. The numbers of patients and events were too low to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn, but this study contributes valuable information about the role of subcutaneous IL-6R inhibition in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods developed and piloted during this trial will be useful in conducting future studies more efficiently. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov-NCT04359901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359901?cond=NCT04359901&draw=2&rank=1.

A Survey of Provider-Reported Use and Perceived Effectiveness of Medications for Symptom Management in Telemedicine and Outpatient Visits for Mild COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have symptoms requiring acute and follow-up care. The aims of this study were to assess (1) provider-reported use of medications and their perceived effectiveness and (2) degree of difficulty managing specific symptoms at episodic COVID-19 care sites and in a longitudinal monitoring program. METHODS: We sent an online survey to physicians, advanced practice providers, and registered nurses redeployed to COVID-19 care sites at an academic medical center from March to May 2020. We asked about the use of medications and perceived effectiveness of medications to treat symptoms of COVID-19 and the perceived challenge of symptom management. Comparison was made by provider type (episodic or longitudinal site of care). RESULTS: Responses from 64 providers were included. The most frequently used medications were acetaminophen (87.1% of respondents), benzonatate (83.9%), and albuterol metered dose inhalers (MDI) (80.6%). Therapies for lower respiratory tract symptoms were reported as more commonly used by longitudinal follow-up providers compared to episodic providers including guaifenesin (90.6% vs 60.0%, p = 0.007), benzonatate (93.8% vs 73.3%, p = 0.04), nebulized albuterol for patients with asthma (75.0% vs 43.3%, p = 0.019), and albuterol MDIs for patients without asthma (90.6% vs 66.7%, p = 0.029). Medications found to have the highest perceived efficacy by respondents using the therapy (> 80% reporting "very efficacious") included albuterol, acetaminophen for fever, non-sedating antihistamines, nasal steroid spray, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for myalgia, arthralgia, or headache. Lower respiratory symptoms and anxiety were rated as the most challenging symptoms to manage. CONCLUSIONS: Providers reported that clinical care of mild COVID-19 with medications in common use for other respiratory infections is effective, both at episodic care and longitudinal sites of care, but that specific symptoms are still challenging to manage.