Contingency management with stepped care for unhealthy alcohol use among individuals with HIV: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality among people with HIV (PWH), many are ambivalent about engaging in treatment and experience variable responses to treatment. We describe the rationale, aims, and study design for the Financial Incentives, Randomization, with Stepped Treatment (FIRST) Trial, a multi-site randomized controlled efficacy trial. METHODS: PWH in care recruited from clinics across the United States who reported unhealthy alcohol use, had a phosphatidylethanol (PEth) >20 ng/mL, and were not engaged in formal alcohol treatment were randomized to integrated contingency management with stepped care versus treatment as usual. The intervention involved two steps; Step 1: Contingency management (n = 5 sessions) with potential rewards based on 1) short-term abstinence; 2) longer-term abstinence; and 3) completion of healthy activities to promote progress in addressing alcohol consumption or conditions potentially impacted by alcohol; Step 2: Addiction physician management (n = 6 sessions) plus motivational enhancement therapy (n = 4 sessions). Participants' treatment was stepped up at week 12 if they lacked evidence of longer-term abstinence. Primary outcome was abstinence at week 24. Secondary outcomes included alcohol consumption (assessed by TLFB and PEth) and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Index 2.0 scores; exploratory outcomes included progress in addressing medical conditions potentially impacted by alcohol. Protocol adaptations due to the COVID-19 pandemic are described. CONCLUSIONS: The FIRST Trial is anticipated to yield insights on the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of integrated contingency management with stepped care to address unhealthy alcohol use among PWH. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT03089320.

C reactive protein utilisation, a biomarker for early COVID-19 treatment, improves lenzilumab efficacy: results from the randomised phase 3 'LIVE-AIR' trial.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 severity is correlated with granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and C reactive protein (CRP) levels. In the phase three LIVE-AIR trial, lenzilumab an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, improved the likelihood of survival without ventilation (SWOV) in COVID-19, with the greatest effect in participants having baseline CRP below a median of 79 mg/L. Herein, the utility of baseline CRP to guide lenzilumab treatment was assessed. DESIGN: A subanalysis of the randomised, blinded, controlled, LIVE-AIR trial in which lenzilumab or placebo was administered on day 0 and participants were followed through Day 28. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised COVID-19 participants (N=520) with SpO2 ≤94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen but not invasive mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Lenzilumab (1800 mg; three divided doses, q8h, within 24 hours) or placebo infusion alongside corticosteroid and remdesivir treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the time-to-event analysis difference in SWOV through day 28 between lenzilumab and placebo treatments, stratified by baseline CRP. RESULTS: SWOV was achieved in 152 (90%; 95% CI 85 to 94) lenzilumab and 144 (79%; 72 to 84) placebo-treated participants with baseline CRP <150 mg/L (HR: 2.54; 95% CI 1.46 to 4.41; p=0.0009) but not with CRP ≥150 mg/L (HR: 1.04; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.14; p=0.9058). A statistically significant interaction between CRP and lenzilumab treatment was observed (p=0.044). Grade ≥3 adverse events with lenzilumab were comparable to placebo in both CRP strata. No treatment-emergent serious adverse events were attributed to lenzilumab. CONCLUSION: Hospitalised hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 with baseline CRP <150 mg/L derived the greatest clinical benefit from treatment with lenzilumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04351152; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Researching COVID to enhance recovery (RECOVER) adult study protocol: Rationale, objectives and design (preprint)

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 infection can result in ongoing, relapsing, or new symptoms or other health effects after the acute phase of infection; termed post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), or long COVID. The characteristics, prevalence, trajectory and mechanisms of PASC are ill-defined. The objectives of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Multi-site Observational Study of PASC in Adults (RECOVER-Adult) are to: (1) characterize PASC prevalence; (2) characterize the symptoms, organ dysfunction, natural history, and distinct phenotypes of PASC; (3) identify demographic, social and clinical risk factors for PASC onset and recovery; and (4) define the biological mechanisms underlying PASC pathogenesis. Methods: RECOVER-Adult is a combined prospective/retrospective cohort currently planned to enroll 14,880 adults aged [≥]18 years. Eligible participants either must meet WHO criteria for suspected, probable, or confirmed infection; or must have evidence of no prior infection. Recruitment occurs at 86 sites in 33 U.S. states, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, via facility- and community-based outreach. Participants complete quarterly questionnaires about symptoms, social determinants, vaccination status, and interim SARS-CoV-2 infections. In addition, participants contribute biospecimens and undergo physical and laboratory examinations at approximately 0, 90 and 180 days from infection or negative test date, and yearly thereafter. Some participants undergo additional testing based on specific criteria or random sampling. Patient representatives provide input on all study processes. The primary study outcome is onset of PASC, measured by signs and symptoms. A paradigm for identifying PASC cases will be defined and updated using supervised and unsupervised learning approaches with cross-validation. Logistic regression and proportional hazards regression will be conducted to investigate associations between risk factors, onset, and resolution of PASC symptoms. Discussion: RECOVER-Adult is the first national, prospective, longitudinal cohort of PASC among US adults. Results of this study are intended to inform public health, spur clinical trials, and expand treatment options.

Management of a large outbreak of COVID-19 at a British Army training centre: lessons for the future.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed major challenges for infection control within training centres, both civilian and military. Here we present a narrative review of an outbreak that occurred at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) in January-March 2021, in the context of the circulating, highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7. METHODS: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 was performed using a combination of reverse transcriptase PCR and Lateral Flow Devices (LFDs). Testing and isolation procedures were conducted in line with a pre-established symptom stratification system. Genomic sequencing was performed on 10 sample isolates. RESULTS: By the end of the outbreak, 185 cases (153 Officer Cadets, 32 permanent staff) had contracted confirmed COVID-19. This represented 15% of the total RMAS population. This resulted in 0 deaths and 0 hospitalisations, but due to necessary isolation procedures did represent an estimated 12 959 person-days of lost training. 9 of 10 (90%) of sequenced isolates had a reportable lineage. All of those reported were found to be the Alpha lineage B.1.1.7. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss the key lessons learnt from the after-action review by the Incident Management Team. These include the importance of multidisciplinary working, the utility of sync matrices to monitor outbreaks in real time, issues around Officer Cadets reporting symptoms, timing of high-risk training activities, infrastructure and use of LFDs. COVID-19 represents a vital learning opportunity to minimise the impact of potential future pandemics, which may produce considerably higher morbidity and mortality in military populations.

Staff experience of a new approach to family safeguarding in Oxfordshire Children's Social Care Services

This paper presents the findings from a qualitative study that sought to understand the experiences of frontline staff working in Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) Children's Social Care Services and their views on a new family safeguarding model (Family Solutions Plus). Focus group interviews were conducted with 20 frontline staff and managers in different teams across OCC Children's Social Care Services using video conferencing software. Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: Preparation for the implementation of Family Solutions Plus, staff views on the implemented model, and challenges to its implementation. Staff voiced strong support for the new model, which places a much greater emphasis than previous practice on supporting the whole family, developing parenting skills and keeping children safe with their families. The challenges associated with the transition to a new model were considerable in the short term, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but there was optimism that the new model could be sustained and stabilized over time. © 2023 The Authors. Child & Family Social Work published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Status, Tenofovir Exposure, and the Risk of Poor Coronavirus Disease 19 Outcomes: Real-World Analysis From 6 United States Cohorts Before Vaccine Rollout.

BACKGROUND: People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH) may be at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We examined HIV status and COVID-19 severity, and whether tenofovir, used by PWH for HIV treatment and people without HIV (PWoH) for HIV prevention, was associated with protection. METHODS: Within 6 cohorts of PWH and PWoH in the United States, we compared the 90-day risk of any hospitalization, COVID-19 hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation or death by HIV status and by prior exposure to tenofovir, among those with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between 1 March and 30 November 2020. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated by targeted maximum likelihood estimation, with adjustment for demographics, cohort, smoking, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, calendar period of first infection, and CD4 cell counts and HIV RNA levels (in PWH only). RESULTS: Among PWH (n = 1785), 15% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 5% received mechanical ventilation or died, compared with 6% and 2%, respectively, for PWoH (n = 189 351). Outcome prevalence was lower for PWH and PWoH with prior tenofovir use. In adjusted analyses, PWH were at increased risk compared with PWoH for any hospitalization (aRR, 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.44]), COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.29 [1.15-1.45]), and mechanical ventilation or death (1.51 [1.19-1.92]). Prior tenofovir use was associated with reduced hospitalizations among PWH (aRR, 0.85 [95% confidence interval, .73-.99]) and PWoH (0.71 [.62-.81]). CONCLUSIONS: Before COVID-19 vaccine availability, PWH were at greater risk for severe outcomes than PWoH. Tenofovir was associated with a significant reduction in clinical events for both PWH and PWoH.

Assessing COVID-19 pandemic policies and behaviours and their economic and educational trade-offs across US states from Jan 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022: an observational analysis.

BACKGROUND: The USA struggled in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, but not all states struggled equally. Identifying the factors associated with cross-state variation in infection and mortality rates could help to improve responses to this and future pandemics. We sought to answer five key policy-relevant questions regarding the following: 1) what roles social, economic, and racial inequities had in interstate variation in COVID-19 outcomes; 2) whether states with greater health-care and public health capacity had better outcomes; 3) how politics influenced the results; 4) whether states that imposed more policy mandates and sustained them longer had better outcomes; and 5) whether there were trade-offs between a state having fewer cumulative SARS-CoV-2 infections and total COVID-19 deaths and its economic and educational outcomes. METHODS: Data disaggregated by US state were extracted from public databases, including COVID-19 infection and mortality estimates from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's (IHME) COVID-19 database; Bureau of Economic Analysis data on state gross domestic product (GDP); Federal Reserve economic data on employment rates; National Center for Education Statistics data on student standardised test scores; and US Census Bureau data on race and ethnicity by state. We standardised infection rates for population density and death rates for age and the prevalence of major comorbidities to facilitate comparison of states' successes in mitigating the effects of COVID-19. We regressed these health outcomes on prepandemic state characteristics (such as educational attainment and health spending per capita), policies adopted by states during the pandemic (such as mask mandates and business closures), and population-level behavioural responses (such as vaccine coverage and mobility). We explored potential mechanisms connecting state-level factors to individual-level behaviours using linear regression. We quantified reductions in state GDP, employment, and student test scores during the pandemic to identify policy and behavioural responses associated with these outcomes and to assess trade-offs between these outcomes and COVID-19 outcomes. Significance was defined as p<0·05. FINDINGS: Standardised cumulative COVID-19 death rates for the period from Jan 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022 varied across the USA (national rate 372 deaths per 100 000 population [95% uncertainty interval [UI] 364-379]), with the lowest standardised rates in Hawaii (147 deaths per 100 000 [127-196]) and New Hampshire (215 per 100 000 [183-271]) and the highest in Arizona (581 per 100 000 [509-672]) and Washington, DC (526 per 100 000 [425-631]). A lower poverty rate, higher mean number of years of education, and a greater proportion of people expressing interpersonal trust were statistically associated with lower infection and death rates, and states where larger percentages of the population identify as Black (non-Hispanic) or Hispanic were associated with higher cumulative death rates. Access to quality health care (measured by the IHME's Healthcare Access and Quality Index) was associated with fewer total COVID-19 deaths and SARS-CoV-2 infections, but higher public health spending and more public health personnel per capita were not, at the state level. The political affiliation of the state governor was not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 death rates, but worse COVID-19 outcomes were associated with the proportion of a state's voters who voted for the 2020 Republican presidential candidate. State governments' uses of protective mandates were associated with lower infection rates, as were mask use, lower mobility, and higher vaccination rate, while vaccination rates were associated with lower death rates. State GDP and student reading test scores were not associated with state COVD-19 policy responses, infection rates, or death rates. Employment, however, had a statistically significant relationship with restaurant closures and greater infections and deaths: on average, 1574 (95% UI 884-7107) additional infections per 10 000 population were associated in states with a one percentage point increase in employment rate. Several policy mandates and protective behaviours were associated with lower fourth-grade mathematics test scores, but our study results did not find a link to state-level estimates of school closures. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 magnified the polarisation and persistent social, economic, and racial inequities that already existed across US society, but the next pandemic threat need not do the same. US states that mitigated those structural inequalities, deployed science-based interventions such as vaccination and targeted vaccine mandates, and promoted their adoption across society were able to match the best-performing nations in minimising COVID-19 death rates. These findings could contribute to the design and targeting of clinical and policy interventions to facilitate better health outcomes in future crises. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, J and E Nordstrom, and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Retrospective and comparative study about the impact of the health crisis on the activity of a pedopsychiatric emergency unit

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to question the psychological consequences of the health crisis in a pediatric population, through an analysis of the variations in the activity data of a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation service. Material(s) and Method(s): The present study is a retrospective and comparative epidemiological study based on an analysis of activity data from a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation at the Lille University Hospital center collected over the period contemporary of the social restriction measures of March 17th, 2020 to May 19th, 2021 as well as those collected after the lifting of these measures from May 19th, 2021 to May 31st, 2022 by comparing them to the activity on this same service over the equivalent periods between January 1st, 2017 and March 17th, 2020. Comparisons centered around the three confinement periods were also carried out. Any patient between 0 and 18 years old taken care of in this emergency consultation was included in this study. Result(s): A significant increase in drug prescriptions and consultations for suicidal ideations was observed during, but also at a distance from social restriction measures. The first confinement was marked by a significant drop in the number of consultations and a significant increase in the drafting of child protection documents. Discussion(s): These results were therefore in favor of an increase in suicidality in the pediatric population during and after the lifting of social restriction measures, as well as an increase in situations relating to child protection during the first confinement. The significant increase in discordant discharge drug prescriptions with the more modest increase in hospitalizations foreshadowed a mismatch between needs and hospitalization capacity. Conclusion(s): An impact of the health crisis could therefore be observed on the activity of a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation during, but also after the lifting of social restriction measures. This raises the importance of not limiting research to periods of confinement, as well as the question of the reversibility of the variations observed for the generation considered. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Science and Health Initiative to Combat Infectious and Emerging Life-Threatening Diseases (VA SHIELD): A Biorepository Addressing National Health Threats.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has demonstrated the need to share data and biospecimens broadly to optimize clinical outcomes for US military Veterans. Methods: In response, the Veterans Health Administration established VA SHIELD (Science and Health Initiative to Combat Infectious and Emerging Life-threatening Diseases), a comprehensive biorepository of specimens and clinical data from affected Veterans to advance research and public health surveillance and to improve diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Results: VA SHIELD now comprises 12 sites collecting de-identified biospecimens from US Veterans affected by SARS-CoV-2. In addition, 2 biorepository sites, a data processing center, and a coordinating center have been established under the direction of the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development. Phase 1 of VA SHIELD comprises 34 157 samples. Of these, 83.8% had positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, with the remainder serving as contemporaneous controls. The samples include nasopharyngeal swabs (57.9%), plasma (27.9%), and sera (12.5%). The associated clinical and demographic information available permits the evaluation of biological data in the context of patient demographics, clinical experience and management, vaccinations, and comorbidities. Conclusions: VA SHIELD is representative of US national diversity with a significant potential to impact national healthcare. VA SHIELD will support future projects designed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 and other emergent healthcare crises. To the extent possible, VA SHIELD will facilitate the discovery of diagnostics and therapeutics intended to diminish COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and to reduce the impact of new emerging threats to the health of US Veterans and populations worldwide.

Effectiveness of Sotrovimab in Preventing COVID-19-related Hospitalizations or Deaths Among U.S. Veterans (preprint)

Background: Data on effectiveness of sotrovimab preventing COVID-19-related hospitalization or mortality, particularly after the emergence of the Omicron variant, are limited. Method: Determine the real-world clinical effectiveness of sotrovimab for prevention of 30-day COVID-19 related hospitalization or mortality using a retrospective cohort within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. Veterans aged [≥]18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 between December 1, 2021, and April 4, 2022, were included. Sotrovimab recipients (n=2,816) were exactly matched to untreated controls (n=11,250) on date of diagnosis, vaccination status, and region. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality within 30 days from diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards modeling estimated the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the association between receipt of sotrovimab and outcomes. Results: During BA.1 dominance, compared to matched controls, sotrovimab-treated patients had a 70% lower risk hospitalization within 30 days or mortality (HR 0.30; 95%CI, 0.23-0.40), a 66% lower risk of 30-day hospitalization (HR 0.34; 95%CI, 0.25-0.46), and a 77% lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality (HR 0.23; 95%CI, 0.14-0.38). During BA.2 dominance sotrovimab-treated patients had a 71% (HR .29; 95%CI, 0.08-0.98) lower risk of 30-day COVID-19-related- hospitalization, emergency, or urgent care. Limitations include confounding by indication. Conclusions: Using national real-world data from high risk and predominantly vaccinated Veterans, administration of sotrovimab, compared with no treatment, was associated with reduced risk of 30-day COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause mortality during the Omicron BA.1 period and reduced risk of progression to severe COVID-19 during the BA.2 dominant period.

Retrospective and comparative study about the impact of the health crisis on the activity of a pedopsychiatric emergency unit

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to question the psychological consequences of the health crisis in a pediatric population, through an analysis of the variations in the activity data of a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation service. Material(s) and Method(s): The present study is a retrospective and comparative epidemiological study based on an analysis of activity data from a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation at the Lille University Hospital center collected over the period contemporary of the social restriction measures of March 17th, 2020 to May 19th, 2021 as well as those collected after the lifting of these measures from May 19th, 2021 to May 31st, 2022 by comparing them to the activity on this same service over the equivalent periods between January 1st, 2017 and March 17th, 2020. Comparisons centered around the three confinement periods were also carried out. Any patient between 0 and 18 years old taken care of in this emergency consultation was included in this study. Result(s): A significant increase in drug prescriptions and consultations for suicidal ideations was observed during, but also at a distance from social restriction measures. The first confinement was marked by a significant drop in the number of consultations and a significant increase in the drafting of child protection documents. Discussion(s): These results were therefore in favor of an increase in suicidality in the pediatric population during and after the lifting of social restriction measures, as well as an increase in situations relating to child protection during the first confinement. The significant increase in discordant discharge drug prescriptions with the more modest increase in hospitalizations foreshadowed a mismatch between needs and hospitalization capacity. Conclusion(s): An impact of the health crisis could therefore be observed on the activity of a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation during, but also after the lifting of social restriction measures. This raises the importance of not limiting research to periods of confinement, as well as the question of the reversibility of the variations observed for the generation considered. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS

The association between comorbidities and coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalization among people with HIV differs by age.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization among people with HIV (PWH) differ by age stratum. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: All adult PWH with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR in a public safety-net health system between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 and a Veterans Affairs Medical Center between 1 1 March 2020 and 15 November 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia were included. We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine demographic and clinical factors associated with COVID-19 hospitalization overall and stratified by age less than 50 and at least 50 years. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-five PWH (mean age 49 years, 74% cisgender male, 82% black) were included. Ninety-six percent were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), 87% had CD4 + T-cell count at least 200 cells/µl, and 89% had HIV-1 RNA less than 200 copies/ml. Overall, age [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 (1.04-1.10)], later date of SARS-CoV-2 infection [aOR 0.997 (0.995-1.00)], heart disease [aOR 2.27 (1.06-4.85)], and history of hepatitis C virus (HCV) [aOR 2.59 (1.13-5.89)] were associated with COVID-19 hospitalization. Age-adjusted comorbidity burden was associated with 30% increased risk of hospitalization [aOR 1.30 (1.11-1.54)]. Among 168 PWH less than 50 years old, older age [aOR 1.09 (1.01-1.18)] and no ART use [aOR 40.26 (4.12-393.62)] were associated with hospitalization; age-adjusted comorbidity burden was not ( P  = 0.25). Among 197 PWH at least 50, older age [aOR 1.10 (1.04-1.16)], heart disease [aOR 2.45 (1.04-5.77)], history of HCV [aOR 3.52 (1.29-9.60)], and age-adjusted comorbidity burden [aOR 1.36 (1.12-1.66)] were associated with hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity burden is more strongly associated with COVID-19 hospitalization among older, rather than younger, PWH. These findings may have important implications for risk-stratifying COVID-19 therapies and booster recommendations in PWH.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Étude rétrospective et comparative de l’impact de la crise sanitaire sur l’activité d’une unité d’urgence pédopsychiatrique

Résumé Objectifs Le but de la présente étude est de questionner les conséquences de la crise sanitaire sur le plan psychologique en population pédiatrique, à travers une analyse des variations des données d’activité d’un service de consultations d’urgences pédopsychiatriques. Matériels et méthodes Le travail réalisé est une étude épidémiologique observationnelle rétrospective et comparative reposant sur une analyse des données d’activité d’une consultation d’urgences pédopsychiatriques du centre hospitalo-universitaire de Lille. Les données recueillies sur la période contemporaine aux mesures de restrictions sociales du 17 mars 2020 au 19 mai 2021 ainsi que celles recueillies après la levée de ces mesures du 19 mai 2021 au 31 mai 2022 ont été comparées à l’activité sur ce même dispositif sur les périodes équivalentes entre le 1er janvier 2017 et 17 mars 2020. Des comparaisons centrées sur les 3 périodes de confinement ont également été réalisées. Tout patient entre 0 et 18 ans pris en charge sur la consultation d’urgence était inclus dans cette étude. Résultats Une augmentation significative des prescriptions médicamenteuses et consultations pour idées suicidaires était observée pendant mais aussi à distance des mesures de restrictions sociales. Le premier confinement était quant à lui marqué par une baisse importante du nombre de consultations et une augmentation significative de la rédaction d’écrits judiciaires. Discussion Ces résultats étaient donc en faveur d’une augmentation de la suicidalité en population pédiatrique pendant et après levée des mesures de restrictions sociales, mais aussi d’une augmentation des situations relevant de la protection de l’enfance au cours du 1er confinement. La hausse significative des prescriptions médicamenteuses à l’issue des consultations discordante avec la hausse plus modeste des hospitalisations laissait présager une inadéquation entre besoins et capacités d’accueil en hospitalisation. Conclusion Un impact de la crise sanitaire a donc pu être observé sur l’activité d’une consultation d’urgence pédopsychiatrique pendant, mais aussi à distance de la levée des mesures de restrictions sociales. Cela souligne l’importance de ne pas limiter la recherche aux périodes de confinements, ainsi que la question de la réversibilité des variations observées pour la génération considérée. Objectives The aim of this retrospective study was to question the psychological consequences of the health crisis in a pediatric population, through an analysis of the variations in the activity data of a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation service. Materials and methods The present study is a retrospective and comparative epidemiological study based on an analysis of activity data from a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation at the Lille University Hospital center collected over the period contemporary of the social restriction measures of March 17th, 2020 to May 19th, 2021 as well as those collected after the lifting of these measures from May 19th, 2021 to May 31st, 2022 by comparing them to the activity on this same service over the equivalent periods between January 1st, 2017 and March 17th, 2020. Comparisons centered around the three confinement periods were also carried out. Any patient between 0 and 18 years old taken care of in this emergency consultation was included in this study. Results A significant increase in drug prescriptions and consultations for suicidal ideations was observed during, but also at a distance from social restriction measures. The first confinement was marked by a significant drop in the number of consultations and a significant increase in the drafting of child protection documents. Discussion These results were therefore in favor of an increase in suicidality in the pediatric population during and after the lifting of social restriction measures, as well as an increase in situations relating to child protection during the first confinemen . The significant increase in discordant discharge drug prescriptions with the more modest increase in hospitalizations foreshadowed a mismatch between needs and hospitalization capacity. Conclusion An impact of the health crisis could therefore be observed on the activity of a pedopsychiatric emergency consultation during, but also after the lifting of social restriction measures. This raises the importance of not limiting research to periods of confinement, as well as the question of the reversibility of the variations observed for the generation considered.

Analysis of Severe Illness After Postvaccination COVID-19 Breakthrough Among Adults With and Without HIV in the US.

Importance: Understanding the severity of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) breakthrough illness among people with HIV (PWH) can inform vaccine guidelines and risk-reduction recommendations. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of severe breakthrough illness among vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) who experience a breakthrough infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET-II) collaboration included adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV who were receiving care and were fully vaccinated by June 30, 2021, along with PWoH matched according to date fully vaccinated, age group, race, ethnicity, and sex from 4 US integrated health systems and academic centers. Those with postvaccination COVID-19 breakthrough before December 31, 2021, were eligible. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness, defined as hospitalization within 28 days after a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis. Discrete time proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs of severe breakthrough illness within 28 days of breakthrough COVID-19 by HIV status adjusting for demographic variables, COVID-19 vaccine type, and clinical factors. The proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation or died was compared by HIV status. Results: Among 3649 patients with breakthrough COVID-19 (1241 PWH and 2408 PWoH), most were aged 55 years or older (2182 patients [59.8%]) and male (3244 patients [88.9%]). The cumulative incidence of severe illness in the first 28 days was low and comparable between PWoH and PWH (7.3% vs 6.7%; risk difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -2.58% to 1.23%). The risk of severe breakthrough illness was 59% higher in PWH with CD4 cell counts less than 350 cells/µL compared with PWoH (aHR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.46; P = .049). In multivariable analyses among PWH, being female, older, having a cancer diagnosis, and lower CD4 cell count were associated with increased risk of severe breakthrough illness, whereas previous COVID-19 was associated with reduced risk. Among 249 hospitalized patients, 24 (9.6%) were mechanically ventilated and 20 (8.0%) died, with no difference by HIV status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness within 28 days of a breakthrough infection was low among vaccinated PWH and PWoH. PWH with moderate or severe immune suppression had a higher risk of severe breakthrough infection and should be included in groups prioritized for additional vaccine doses and risk-reduction strategies.

Impact of COVID-19 on healthcare access for older adults with combined hearing and vision loss: A Canada-wide survey of healthcare workers

Purpose : Older adults with combined hearing and vision loss (dual sensory loss/DSL) are a highly vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although around 1.1 million older Canadians live with DSL, data are scarce on how COVID-19 affected their access to healthcare during the pandemic. Therefore, the present study explored the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare access for older Canadians with DSL. Methods : We distributed an online survey for healthcare workers who provided services to older adults with DSL during the pandemic. Survey data were collected from 228 Canadian healthcare workers between August and November 2021. Content analysis was used to analyze open-ended qualitative data, whereas descriptive statistics were used for quantitative survey data using SPSS. Results : Almost all healthcare workers felt that COVID-19 has negatively affected their care delivery to older adults with DSL, especially due to physical distancing and use of Personal Protective Equipment. Moreover, those using telehealth with their older clients reported that COVID-19 related shift to telehealth appointments restricted access to healthcare for their clients. Most respondents (91%) felt that older adults with DSL found it difficult to follow pandemic-related physical distancing guidelines in a clinical or health system setting. While 69% of them believed that the health system was not adapted to match the needs of older adults living DSL, 71 % felt healthcare professionals are not adequately trained to meet the needs of this population in pandemic situations such as COVID-19. Conclusions : We concluded that the pandemic has negatively impacted healthcare services to older adults with DSL. The pandemic accentuated the need for equitable care for older adults with DSL, considering the unique challenges experienced by them and their healthcare providers. Our study findings underscored the need for training of healthcare professionals on the communication and accessibility needs of older adults living with DSL.

Lenzilumab in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (LIVE-AIR): a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. METHODS: In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04351152, and is completed. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41-137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79-89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72-83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02-2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The added value of lenzilumab beyond other immunomodulators used to treat COVID-19 alongside steroids remains unknown. FUNDING: Humanigen.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between those that required supplemental oxygen and received dexamethasone with a comparable set of patients who did not receive dexamethasone. METHODS: We utilized the Premier Health Database to identify hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 from July 1, 2020-January 31, 2021. Index date was when patients first initiated oxygen therapy. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality for patients receiving dexamethasone versus those not receiving dexamethasone 1-day pre- to 1-day post-index period. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality, time to in-hospital mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, time to discharge, and proportion discharged alive by day 28. Twenty-three models using weighting, matching, stratification, and regression were deployed through the concept of frequentist model average (FMA) to estimate the effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality up to the 28-day hospitalization period. RESULTS: A total of 1,208,881 patients with COVID-19 were screened; as an inpatient 255,216 used oxygen, and 251,536 were included in the analysis. In the dexamethasone group, odds of in-hospital mortality were higher than those of the comparator (FMA: odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.08, 1.22). Using a best fit model, OR for in-hospital mortality was non-significant for the dexamethasone group compared with the comparator (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92, 1.14). Dexamethasone treatment was associated with poorer outcomes versus the comparator group across the majority of secondary endpoints, except for number of days in hospital, which was lower in the dexamethasone group versus the comparator group (mean difference - 2.14, 95% CI - 2.43, - 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and received dexamethasone did not have a survival benefit versus similar patients not receiving dexamethasone. The dexamethasone group was not associated with favorable responses for outcomes such as progression to death or mechanical ventilation and time to in-hospital death.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron and Delta variants in a matched test-negative case-control study among US veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) booster doses during the period of Delta and Omicron variant dominance. DESIGN: We conducted a matched test-negative case-control study to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of three and two doses of mRNA vaccines against infection (regardless of symptoms) and against COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death. SETTING: Veterans Health Administration. PARTICIPANTS: We used electronic health record data from 114 640 veterans who had a SARS-CoV-2 test during November 2021-January 2022. Patients were largely 65 years or older (52%), male (88%) and non-Hispanic white (59%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First positive result for a SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test. RESULTS: Against infection, booster doses had higher estimated VE (64%, 95% CI 63 to 65) than two-dose vaccination (12%, 95% CI 10 to 15) during the Omicron period. For the Delta period, the VE against infection was 90% (95% CI 88 to 92) among boosted vaccinees, higher than the VE among two-dose vaccinees (54%, 95% CI 50 to 57). Against hospitalisation, booster dose VE was 89% (95% CI 88 to 91) during Omicron and 94% (95% CI 90 to 96) during Delta; two-dose VE was 63% (95% CI 58 to 67) during Omicron and 75% (95% CI 69 to 80) during Delta. Against death, the VE with a booster dose was 94% (95% CI 90 to 96) during Omicron and 96% (95% CI 87 to 99) during Delta. CONCLUSIONS: Among an older, mostly male, population with comorbidities, we found that an mRNA vaccine booster was highly effective against infection, hospitalisation and death. Although the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infection was moderately higher against Delta than against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant, effectiveness against severe disease and death was similarly high against both variants.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.