Prospective individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized trials on convalescent plasma for COVID-19 outpatients.

Data on convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 outpatients are scarce. We aimed to assess whether CP administered during the first week of symptoms reduced the disease progression or risk of hospitalization of outpatients. Two multicenter, double-blind randomized trials (NCT04621123, NCT04589949) were merged with data pooling starting when <20% of recruitment target was achieved. A Bayesian-adaptive individual patient data meta-analysis was implemented. Outpatients aged ≥50 years and symptomatic for ≤7days were included. The intervention consisted of 200-300mL of CP with a predefined minimum level of antibodies. Primary endpoints were a 5-point disease severity scale and a composite of hospitalization or death by 28 days. Amongst the 797 patients included, 390 received CP and 392 placebo; they had a median age of 58 years, 1 comorbidity, 5 days symptoms and 93% had negative IgG antibody-test. Seventy-four patients were hospitalized, 6 required mechanical ventilation and 3 died. The odds ratio (OR) of CP for improved disease severity scale was 0.936 (credible interval (CI) 0.667-1.311); OR for hospitalization or death was 0.919 (CI 0.592-1.416). CP effect on hospital admission or death was largest in patients with ≤5 days of symptoms (OR 0.658, 95%CI 0.394-1.085). CP did not decrease the time to full symptom resolution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04621123 and NCT04589949. REGISTRATION: NCT04621123 and NCT04589949 on https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Sex differences in the prognostic value of troponin and D-dimer in COVID-19 illness.

BACKGROUND: Male sex, elevated troponin levels, and elevated D-dimer levels are associated with more complicated COVID-19 illness and greater mortality; however, while there are known sex differences in the prognostic value of troponin and D-dimer in other disease states, it is unknown whether they exist in the setting of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether sex modified the relationship between troponin, D-dimer, and severe COVID-19 illness (defined as mechanical ventilation, ICU admission or transfer, discharge to hospice, or death). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large, academic health system. We used multivariable regression to assess associations between sex, troponin, D-dimer, and severe COVID-19 illness, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and laboratory covariates. To test whether sex modified the relationship between severe COVID-19 illness and troponin or D-dimer, models with interaction terms were utilized. RESULTS: Among 4,574 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, male sex was associated with higher levels of troponin and greater odds of severe COVID-19 illness, but lower levels of initial D-dimer when compared with female sex. While sex did not modify the relationship between troponin level and severe COVID-19 illness, peak D-dimer level was more strongly associated with severe COVID-19 illness in male patients compared to female patients (males: OR=2.91, 95%CI=2.63-2.34, p<0.001; females: OR=2.31, 95%CI=2.04-2.63, p<0.001; p-interaction=0.005). CONCLUSION: Sex did not modify the association between troponin level and severe COVID-19 illness, but did modify the association between peak D-dimer and severe COVID-19 illness, suggesting greater prognostic value for D-dimer in males with COVID-19.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes over a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. Methods: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy (INV) added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy (CON). Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as pre-specified in the trial protocol. Results: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23 % women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% diabetes, and median EF 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 non-cardiovascular deaths and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate 12.7% in INV, 13.4% in CON; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.18). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% vs. 8.6%, adjusted HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of non-cardiovascular mortality (5.6% vs. 4.4%, adjusted HR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.08-1.91) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. Conclusions: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of non-cardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04894877; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894877.

Treating COVID-19 With Hydroxychloroquine (TEACH): A Multicenter, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapies to combat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has in vitro antiviral activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the clinical benefit of HCQ in treating COVID-19 is unclear. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of HCQ for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind randomized clinical trial of HCQ among patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to HCQ or placebo for 5 days and followed for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a severe disease progression composite end point (death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and/or vasopressor use) at day 14. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were similar between the HCQ (n = 67) and placebo (n = 61) arms. At day 14, 11 (16.4%) subjects assigned to HCQ and 6 (9.8%) subjects assigned to placebo met the severe disease progression end point, but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .350). There were no significant differences in COVID-19 clinical scores, number of oxygen-free days, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, or adverse events between HCQ and placebo. HCQ was associated with a slight increase in mean corrected QT interval, an increased D-dimer, and a trend toward an increased length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that HCQ does not prevent severe outcomes or improve clinical scores. However, our conclusions are limited by a relatively small sample size, and larger randomized controlled trials or pooled analyses are needed.

Clinical and genomic signatures of SARS-CoV-2 Delta breakthrough infections in New York.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, Delta became the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant worldwide. While vaccines have effectively prevented COVID-19 hospitalization and death, vaccine breakthrough infections increasingly occurred. The precise role of clinical and genomic determinants in Delta infections is not known, and whether they contributed to increased rates of breakthrough infections compared to unvaccinated controls. METHODS: We studied SARS-CoV-2 variant distribution, dynamics, and adaptive selection over time in relation to vaccine status, phylogenetic relatedness of viruses, full genome mutation profiles, and associated clinical and demographic parameters. FINDINGS: We show a steep and near-complete replacement of circulating variants with Delta between May and August 2021 in metropolitan New York. We observed an increase of the Delta sublineage AY.25 (14% in vaccinated, 7% in unvaccinated), its spike mutation S112L, and AY.44 (8% in vaccinated, 2% in unvaccinated) with its nsp12 mutation F192V in breakthroughs. Delta infections were associated with younger age and lower hospitalization rates than Alpha. Delta breakthrough infections increased significantly with time since vaccination, and, after adjusting for confounders, they rose at similar rates as in unvaccinated individuals. INTERPRETATION: We observed a modest adaptation of Delta genomes in breakthrough infections in New York, suggesting an improved genomic framework to support Delta's epidemic growth in times of waning vaccine protection despite limited impact on vaccine escape. FUNDING: The study was supported by NYU institutional funds. The NYULH Genome Technology Center is partially supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant P30CA016087 at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center.

A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo Controlled Trial of Clazakizumab for the Treatment of COVID-19 Pneumonia With Hyperinflammation.

OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to test whether clazakizumab, a direct interleukin-6 inhibitor, benefits patients hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 disease accompanied by hyperinflammation. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, seamless phase II/III trial. SETTING: Five U.S. medical centers. PATIENTS: Adults inpatients with severe COVID-19 disease and hyperinflammation. INTERVENTIONS: Eighty-one patients enrolled in phase II, randomized 1:1:1 to low-dose (12.5 mg) or high-dose (25 mg) clazakizumab or placebo. Ninety-seven patients enrolled in phase III, randomized 1:1 to high-dose clazakizumab or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 28-day ventilator-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, frequency and duration of intubation, and frequency and duration of ICU admission. Per Data Safety and Monitoring Board recommendations, additional secondary outcomes describing clinical status and status changes, as measured by an ordinal scale, were added. Bayesian cumulative proportional odds, logistic, and Poisson regression models were used. The low-dose arm was dropped when the phase II study suggested superiority of the high-dose arm. We report on 152 patients, 74 randomized to placebo and 78 to high-dose clazakizumab. Patients receiving clazakizumab had greater odds of 28-day ventilator-free survival (odds ratio [OR] = 3.84; p [OR > 1] 99.9%), as well as overall survival at 28 and 60 days (OR = 1.75; p [OR > 1] 86.5% and OR = 2.53; p [OR > 1] 97.7%). Clazakizumab was associated with lower odds of intubation (OR = 0.2; p [OR] < 1; 99.9%) and ICU admission (OR = 0.26; p [OR < 1] 99.6%); shorter durations of ventilation and ICU stay (risk ratio [RR] < 0.75; p [RR < 1] > 99% for both); and greater odds of improved clinical status at 14, 28, and 60 days (OR = 2.32, p [OR > 1] 98.1%; OR = 3.36, p [OR > 1] 99.6%; and OR = 3.52, p [OR > 1] 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clazakizumab significantly improved 28-day ventilator-free survival, 28- and 60-day overall survival, as well as clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hyperinflammation.

Zoster Eye Disease Study: Rationale and Design.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the rationale and design of the Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS). METHODS: ZEDS is a National Eye Institute-supported randomized clinical trial designed to determine whether 1 year of suppressive valacyclovir in patients with herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) reduces complications because there is currently no high-quality evidence to support its use. Eligible patients are 18 years and older, immunocompetent, have a history of a typical rash at disease onset, and have had a record of active epithelial or stromal keratitis or iritis within 1 year before enrollment. Exclusion criteria include estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 45 or pregnancy. The primary endpoint is the time to first occurrence of new or worsening dendriform epithelial keratitis, stromal keratitis without or with ulceration, endothelial keratitis, or iritis due to HZO during 12 months of study treatment requiring prespecified treatment changes. The study has 80% power to detect a 30% difference between treatment groups, with a 30% rate of endpoints by 1 year assumed among controls. Secondary and exploratory questions include whether there is a persistent treatment benefit during the 6 months after treatment, whether development of postherpetic neuralgia varies by treatment group, and whether vaccinations against herpes zoster affect study outcomes and coronavirus disease 19 status. RESULTS: Over approximately 4 years, over 400 study participants have been enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: ZEDS aims to provide scientific evidence on whether suppressive valacyclovir treatment improves outcomes in HZO and should become the standard of care.

Trajectories of Neurologic Recovery 12 Months After Hospitalization for COVID-19: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little is known about trajectories of recovery 12 months after hospitalization for severe COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with and without neurologic complications during index hospitalization for COVID-19 from March 10, 2020, to May 20, 2020. Phone follow-up batteries were performed at 6 and 12 months after COVID-19 onset. The primary 12-month outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score comparing patients with or without neurologic complications using multivariable ordinal analysis. Secondary outcomes included activities of daily living (Barthel Index), telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment (t-MoCA), and Quality of Life in Neurologic Disorders (Neuro-QoL) batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep. Changes in outcome scores from 6 to 12 months were compared using nonparametric paired-samples sign test. RESULTS: Twelve-month follow-up was completed in 242 patients (median age 65 years, 64% male, 34% intubated during hospitalization) and 174 completed both 6- and 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, 197/227 (87%) had ≥1 abnormal metric: mRS >0 (75%), Barthel Index <100 (64%), t-MoCA ≤18 (50%), high anxiety (7%), depression (4%), fatigue (9%), or poor sleep (10%). Twelve-month mRS scores did not differ significantly among those with (n = 113) or without (n = 129) neurologic complications during hospitalization after adjusting for age, sex, race, pre-COVID-19 mRS, and intubation status (adjusted OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.5), although those with neurologic complications had higher fatigue scores (T score 47 vs 44; p = 0.037). Significant improvements in outcome trajectories from 6 to 12 months were observed in t-MoCA scores (56% improved, median difference 1 point; p = 0.002) and Neuro-QoL anxiety scores (45% improved; p = 0.003). Nonsignificant improvements occurred in fatigue, sleep, and depression scores in 48%, 48%, and 38% of patients, respectively. Barthel Index and mRS scores remained unchanged between 6 and 12 months in >50% of patients. DISCUSSION: At 12 months after hospitalization for severe COVID-19, 87% of patients had ongoing abnormalities in functional, cognitive, or Neuro-QoL metrics and abnormal cognition persisted in 50% of patients without a history of dementia/cognitive abnormality. Only fatigue severity differed significantly between patients with or without neurologic complications during index hospitalization. However, significant improvements in cognitive (t-MoCA) and anxiety (Neuro-QoL) scores occurred in 56% and 45% of patients, respectively, between 6 and 12 months. These results may not be generalizable to those with mild or moderate COVID-19.

Development and Validation of a Treatment Benefit Index to Identify Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Who May Benefit From Convalescent Plasma.

Importance: Identifying which patients with COVID-19 are likely to benefit from COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment may have a large public health impact. Objective: To develop an index for predicting the expected relative treatment benefit from CCP compared with treatment without CCP for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 using patients' baseline characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the COMPILE study, ie, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP vs control in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. A combination of baseline characteristics, termed the treatment benefit index (TBI), was developed based on 2287 patients in COMPILE using a proportional odds model, with baseline characteristics selected via cross-validation. The TBI was externally validated on 4 external data sets: the Expanded Access Program (1896 participants), a study conducted under Emergency Use Authorization (210 participants), and 2 RCTs (with 80 and 309 participants). Exposure: Receipt of CCP. Main Outcomes and Measures: World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal COVID-19 clinical status scale and 2 derivatives of it (ie, WHO score of 7-10, indicating mechanical ventilation to death, and WHO score of 10, indicating death) at day 14 and day 28 after randomization. Day 14 WHO 11-point ordinal scale was used as the primary outcome to develop the TBI. Results: A total of 2287 patients were included in the derivation cohort, with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (15.2) years and 815 (35.6%) women. The TBI provided a continuous gradation of benefit, and, for clinical utility, it was operationalized into groups of expected large clinical benefit (B1; 629 participants in the derivation cohort [27.5%]), moderate benefit (B2; 953 [41.7%]), and potential harm or no benefit (B3; 705 [30.8%]). Patients with preexisting conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases), with blood type A or AB, and at an early COVID-19 stage (low baseline WHO scores) were expected to benefit most, while those without preexisting conditions and at more advanced stages of COVID-19 could potentially be harmed. In the derivation cohort, odds ratios for worse outcome, where smaller odds ratios indicate larger benefit from CCP, were 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.48-1.06) for B1, 0.82 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.11) for B2, and 1.58 (95% CrI, 1.14-2.17) for B3. Testing on 4 external datasets supported the validation of the derived TBIs. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the CCP TBI is a simple tool that can quantify the relative benefit from CCP treatment for an individual patient hospitalized with COVID-19 that can be used to guide treatment recommendations. The TBI precision medicine approach could be especially helpful in a pandemic.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Status in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective: To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources: From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection: Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results: Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants: CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions: A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results: Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

Dominance of Alpha and Iota variants in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections in New York City.

The efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is high, but breakthrough infections still occur. We compared the SARS-CoV-2 genomes of 76 breakthrough cases after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or JNJ-78436735 (Janssen) to unvaccinated controls (February-April 2021) in metropolitan New York, including their phylogenetic relationship, distribution of variants, and full spike mutation profiles. The median age of patients in the study was 48 years; 7 required hospitalization and 1 died. Most breakthrough infections (57/76) occurred with B.1.1.7 (Alpha) or B.1.526 (Iota). Among the 7 hospitalized cases, 4 were infected with B.1.1.7, including 1 death. Both unmatched and matched statistical analyses considering age, sex, vaccine type, and study month as covariates supported the null hypothesis of equal variant distributions between vaccinated and unvaccinated in χ2 and McNemar tests (P > 0.1), highlighting a high vaccine efficacy against B.1.1.7 and B.1.526. There was no clear association among breakthroughs between type of vaccine received and variant. In the vaccinated group, spike mutations in the N-terminal domain and receptor-binding domain that have been associated with immune evasion were overrepresented. The evolving dynamic of SARS-CoV-2 variants requires broad genomic analyses of breakthrough infections to provide real-life information on immune escape mediated by circulating variants and their spike mutations.

Meeting the challenges of retention and enrollment of study participants in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic from the study leadership perspective: Experience from the Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS).

PURPOSE: To describe steps taken that enabled a high rate of retention and early resumption of enrollment in the Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS), a randomized controlled trial funded by the National Eye Institute, during the first 13 months (3/1/2020-3/31/2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A number of responses were implemented in ZEDS when the focus shifted to retention of study participants at the beginning of the pandemic including frequent communication with the participating clinical centers (PCCs) about remote visits, local lab work, shipping study medication, and completion of revised case report forms. Additional payments were provided to the PCCs. Remote activation of PCCs continued. Screening and enrollment visits gradually resumed when allowed. RESULTS: Communication with PCCs increased, and average attendance at monthly coordinator teleconferences went up from 17 to 47. Remote visits peaked in April 2020, accounting for 75% (33/44) of study visits, then declined to less than 10% of study visits beginning August 2020. Overall, 97% (590/609) of study visits were completed. Only 5.5% (9/165) of study participants withdrew consent, and 2.4% (4/165) were lost to follow-up. Enrollment returned to pre-pandemic levels by September 2020. DISCUSSION: Strong communication and unwavering commitment, combined with the technological capability for remote work, visits, and shipment of study medication, were key to the successful retention of study participants and resumption of enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid responses to challenges to trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic can enable them to continue successfully and provide insights into the planning of future trials.

Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

COVID-19 and ischemic stroke.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial proportion of COVID-19 patients had documented thrombotic complications and ischemic stroke. Several mechanisms related to immune-mediated thrombosis, the renin angiotensin system and the effect of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac and brain tissue may contribute to the pathogenesis of ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19. Simultaneously, significant strains on global healthcare delivery, including ischemic stroke management, have made treatment of stroke in the setting of COVID-19 particularly challenging. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on epidemiology, clinical manifestation, and pathophysiology of ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 to bridge the gap from bench to bedside and clinical practice during the most challenging global health crisis of the last decades.

Prospective individual patient data meta-analysis: Evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19.

As the world faced the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020, numerous clinical trials were initiated in many locations in an effort to establish the efficacy (or lack thereof) of potential treatments. As the pandemic has been shifting locations rapidly, individual studies have been at risk of failing to meet recruitment targets because of declining numbers of eligible patients with COVID-19 encountered at participating sites. It has become clear that it might take several more COVID-19 surges at the same location to achieve full enrollment and to find answers about what treatments are effective for this disease. This paper proposes an innovative approach for pooling patient-level data from multiple ongoing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have not been configured as a network of sites. We present the statistical analysis plan of a prospective individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) from ongoing RCTs of convalescent plasma (CP). We employ an adaptive Bayesian approach for continuously monitoring the accumulating pooled data via posterior probabilities for safety, efficacy, and harm. Although we focus on RCTs for CP and address specific challenges related to CP treatment for COVID-19, the proposed framework is generally applicable to pooling data from RCTs for other therapies and disease settings in order to find answers in weeks or months, rather than years.

A prospective study of long-term outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without neurological complications.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding long-term outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 6-month outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients with new neurological complications during hospitalization who survived were propensity score-matched to COVID-19 survivors without neurological complications hospitalized during the same period. The primary 6-month outcome was multivariable ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale(mRS) comparing patients with or without neurological complications. Secondary outcomes included: activities of daily living (ADLs;Barthel Index), telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Neuro-QoL batteries for anxiety, depression, fatigue and sleep. RESULTS: Of 606 COVID-19 patients with neurological complications, 395 survived hospitalization and were matched to 395 controls; N = 196 neurological patients and N = 186 controls completed follow-up. Overall, 346/382 (91%) patients had at least one abnormal outcome: 56% had limited ADLs, 50% impaired cognition, 47% could not return to work and 62% scored worse than average on ≥1 Neuro-QoL scale (worse anxiety 46%, sleep 38%, fatigue 36%, and depression 25%). In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications had worse 6-month mRS (median 4 vs. 3 among controls, adjusted OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.23-3.48, P = 0.02), worse ADLs (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.29-0.74, P = 0.01) and were less likely to return to work than controls (41% versus 64%, P = 0.04). Cognitive and Neuro-QOL metrics were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormalities in functional outcomes, ADLs, anxiety, depression and sleep occurred in over 90% of patients 6-months after hospitalization for COVID-19. In multivariable analysis, patients with neurological complications during index hospitalization had significantly worse 6-month functional outcomes than those without.

Toxic Metabolic Encephalopathy in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Toxic metabolic encephalopathy (TME) has been reported in 7-31% of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, some reports include sedation-related delirium and few data exist on the etiology of TME. We aimed to identify the prevalence, etiologies, and mortality rates associated with TME in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study among patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized at four New York City hospitals in the same health network between March 1, 2020, and May 20, 2020. TME was diagnosed in patients with altered mental status off sedation or after an adequate sedation washout. Patients with structural brain disease, seizures, or primary neurological diagnoses were excluded. The coprimary outcomes were the prevalence of TME stratified by etiology and in-hospital mortality (excluding comfort care only patients) assessed by using a multivariable time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models with adjustment for age, race, sex, intubation, intensive care unit requirement, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, hospital location, and date of admission. RESULTS: Among 4491 patients with COVID-19, 559 (12%) were diagnosed with TME, of whom 435 of 559 (78%) developed encephalopathy immediately prior to hospital admission. The most common etiologies were septic encephalopathy (n = 247 of 559 [62%]), hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) (n = 331 of 559 [59%]), and uremia (n = 156 of 559 [28%]). Multiple etiologies were present in 435 (78%) patients. Compared with those without TME (n = 3932), patients with TME were older (76 vs. 62 years), had dementia (27% vs. 3%) or psychiatric history (20% vs. 10%), were more often intubated (37% vs. 20%), had a longer hospital length of stay (7.9 vs. 6.0 days), and were less often discharged home (25% vs. 66% [all P < 0.001]). Excluding comfort care patients (n = 267 of 4491 [6%]) and after adjustment for confounders, TME remained associated with increased risk of in-hospital death (n = 128 of 425 [30%] patients with TME died, compared with n = 600 of 3799 [16%] patients without TME; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.52, P = 0.031), and TME due to hypoxemia conferred the highest risk (n = 97 of 233 [42%] patients with HIE died, compared with n = 631 of 3991 [16%] patients without HIE; aHR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TME occurred in one in eight hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was typically multifactorial, and was most often due to hypoxemia, sepsis, and uremia. After we adjustment for confounding factors, TME was associated with a 24% increased risk of in-hospital mortality.

The National Institutes of Health COVID-19 NeuroDatabank and NeuroBiobank: A National Resource for Learning, Discovery, and Progress.

Patients suffering from COVID-19 experience a wide range of symptoms and sequelae, including increasingly recognized neurological problems. A concerted effort is necessary to identify and characterize these issues, whether newly appearing as a result of COVID-19 disease or exacerbations of underlying conditions. A national resource to collect information and/or biospecimens regarding neurological complications of COVID-19 offers an opportunity for broad representation, harmonization, and rapid learning, all while ensuring robust protection of confidential information through the use of global unique identifiers to protect patient privacy.

Acceptability of a community health worker intervention to improve the oral health of older Chinese Americans: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability of a community health worker (CHW) intervention designed to improve the oral health of low-income, urban Chinese immigrant adults. BACKGROUND: Given that both dental caries and periodontitis are behaviourally mediated, biofilm-based diseases that are largely preventable with attention to regular oral hygiene practices and preventive dental visits, strategies to arrest or even heal carious lesions and high-quality maintenance care and plaque control without the need to resort to aerosol-generating surgical approaches are evidence-based best practices. Older immigrants have poorer oral health than older US-born natives, motivating the need for delivery of more effective and affordable services to this vulnerable population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CHWs were trained by the NYU College of Dentistry dental hygienist faculty members using dental models and flip charts to instruct patients on proper brushing and flossing techniques. In addition, they discussed the presented oral health promotion information one-on-one with patients, addressed any expressed concerns and encouraged prevention of oral conditions through regular dental visits and brushing with fluoride toothpaste. RESULTS: More than 98% of the 74 older Chinese adult participants strongly agreed/agreed that the CHWs helped them to improve how they take care of their health, the CHWs answered their questions and concerns, the information and topics were informative, and the in-person demonstrations were helpful in improving oral health. CONCLUSION: The health of all communities depends on access to comprehensive care, including oral health care, in the wake of COVID-19. CHW interventions are acceptable to and may reach marginalised and immigrant communities.