Effect of tele-COVID rounds and a tele-stewardship intervention on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients admitted to 17 small community hospitals.

Antibiotic stewardship interventions are urgently needed to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, particularly in small community hospitals (SCHs), who often lack access to infectious diseases (ID) and stewardship resources. We implemented multidisciplinary tele-COVID rounds plus tele-antibiotic stewardship surveillance in 17 SCHs to standardize COVID management and evaluate concurrent antibiotics for discontinuation. Antibiotic use was compared in the 4 months preintervention versus 10 months postintervention. Interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated an immediate decrease in antibiotic use by 339 days of therapy/1000 COVID-19 patient days (p < .001), and an estimated 5258 antibiotic days avoided during the postintervention period. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different, and a significant reduction in transfers was observed following the intervention (23.3% vs. 7.8%, p < .001). A novel tele-ID and tele-stewardship intervention significantly decreased antibiotic use and transfers among COVID-19 patients at 17 SCHs, demonstrating that telehealth is a feasible way to provide ID expertise in community and rural settings.

Simple scoring tool to estimate risk of hospitalization and mortality in ambulatory and emergency department patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Accurate methods of identifying patients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of poor outcomes has become especially important with the advent of limited-availability therapies such as monoclonal antibodies. Here we describe development and validation of a simple but accurate scoring tool to classify risk of hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: All consecutive patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 from March 25-October 1, 2020 within the Intermountain Healthcare system were included. The cohort was randomly divided into 70% derivation and 30% validation cohorts. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted for 14-day hospitalization. The optimal model was then adapted to a simple, probabilistic score and applied to the validation cohort and evaluated for prediction of hospitalization and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 22,816 patients were included; mean age was 40 years, 50.1% were female and 44% identified as non-white race or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. 6.2% required hospitalization and 0.4% died. Criteria in the simple model included: age (0.5 points per decade); high-risk comorbidities (2 points each): diabetes mellitus, severe immunocompromised status and obesity (body mass index≥30); non-white race/Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity (2 points), and 1 point each for: male sex, dyspnea, hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiac arrythmia, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic pulmonary disease, chronic liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic neurologic disease. In the derivation cohort (n = 16,030) area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.84) for hospitalization and 0.91 (0.83-0.94) for 28-day mortality; in the validation cohort (n = 6,786) AUROC for hospitalization was 0.8 (CI 0.78-0.82) and for mortality 0.8 (CI 0.69-0.9). CONCLUSION: A prediction score based on widely available patient attributes accurately risk stratifies patients with COVID-19 at the time of testing. Applications include patient selection for therapies targeted at preventing disease progression in non-hospitalized patients, including monoclonal antibodies. External validation in independent healthcare environments is needed.

Association of the Intermountain Risk Score with major adverse health events in patients positive for COVID-19: an observational evaluation of a US cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS), composed using published sex-specific weightings of parameters in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic profile (BMP), is a validated predictor of mortality. We hypothesised that IMRS calculated from prepandemic CBC and BMP predicts COVID-19 outcomes and that IMRS using laboratory results tested at COVID-19 diagnosis is also predictive. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Primary, secondary, urgent and emergent care, and drive-through testing locations across Utah and in sections of adjacent US states. Viral RNA testing for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted from 3 March to 2 November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years were evaluated if they had CBC and BMP measured in 2019 and tested positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation or mortality, with secondary outcomes being hospitalisation and mortality separately. RESULTS: Among 3883 patients, 8.2% were hospitalised and 1.6% died. Subjects with low, mild, moderate and high-risk IMRS had the composite endpoint in 3.5% (52/1502), 8.6% (108/1256), 15.5% (152/979) and 28.1% (41/146) of patients, respectively. Compared with low-risk, subjects in mild-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk groups had HR=2.33 (95% CI 1.67 to 3.24), HR=4.01 (95% CI 2.93 to 5.50) and HR=8.34 (95% CI 5.54 to 12.57), respectively. Subjects aged <60 years had HR=3.06 (95% CI 2.01 to 4.65) and HR=7.38 (95% CI 3.14 to 17.34) for moderate and high risks versus low risk, respectively; those ≥60 years had HR=1.95 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.86) and HR=3.40 (95% CI 1.63 to 7.07). In multivariable analyses, IMRS was independently predictive and was shown to capture substantial risk variation of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: IMRS, a simple risk score using very basic laboratory results, predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. This included important abilities to identify risk in younger adults with few diagnosed comorbidities and to predict risk prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Early Remdesivir to Prevent Progression to Severe Covid-19 in Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Whether the use of remdesivir in symptomatic, nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who are at high risk for disease progression prevents hospitalization is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19 who had symptom onset within the previous 7 days and who had at least one risk factor for disease progression (age ≥60 years, obesity, or certain coexisting medical conditions). Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 and 100 mg on days 2 and 3) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause by day 28. The primary safety end point was any adverse event. A secondary end point was a composite of a Covid-19-related medically attended visit or death from any cause by day 28. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of remdesivir or placebo were included in the analyses: 279 patients in the remdesivir group and 283 in the placebo group. The mean age was 50 years, 47.9% of the patients were women, and 41.8% were Hispanic or Latinx. The most common coexisting conditions were diabetes mellitus (61.6%), obesity (55.2%), and hypertension (47.7%). Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 2 patients (0.7%) in the remdesivir group and in 15 (5.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.59; P = 0.008). A total of 4 of 246 patients (1.6%) in the remdesivir group and 21 of 252 (8.3%) in the placebo group had a Covid-19-related medically attended visit by day 28 (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.56). No patients had died by day 28. Adverse events occurred in 42.3% of the patients in the remdesivir group and in 46.3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PINETREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501952; EudraCT number, 2020-003510-12.).

Real-world Effectiveness and Tolerability of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Ambulatory Patients With Early COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are a promising therapy for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their effectiveness has not been confirmed in a real-world setting. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental pre-/postimplementation study, we estimated the effectiveness of MAb treatment within 7 days of symptom onset in high-risk ambulatory adults with COVID-19. The primary outcome was a composite of emergency department visits or hospitalizations within 14 days of positive test. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and 14-day mortality. The average treatment effect in the treated for MAb therapy was estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting and the impact of MAb implementation using propensity-weighted interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (July-November 2020), 7404 qualifying patients were identified. Postimplementation (December 2020-January 2021), 594 patients received MAb treatment and 5536 did not. The primary outcome occurred in 75 (12.6%) MAb recipients, 1018 (18.4%) contemporaneous controls, and 1525 (20.6%) historical controls. MAb treatment was associated with decreased likelihood of emergency care or hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79). After implementation, the weighted probability that a given patient would require an emergency department visit or hospitalization decreased significantly (0.7% per day; 95% CI, 0.03%-0.10%). Mortality was 0.2% (n = 1) in the MAb group compared with 1.0% (n = 71) and 1.0% (n = 57) in pre- and postimplementation controls, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 7 (1.2%); 2 (0.3%) were considered serious. CONCLUSIONS: MAb treatment of high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 was well tolerated and likely effective at preventing the need for subsequent emergency department or hospital care.

Evaluation of potential COVID-19 recurrence in patients with late repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and reactivation has mostly been described in case reports. We therefore investigated the epidemiology of recurrent COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Among patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 11 and July 31, 2020 within an integrated healthcare system, we identified patients with a recurrent positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay ≥60 days after an initial positive test. To assign an overall likelihood of COVID-19 recurrence, we combined quantitative data from initial and recurrent positive RT-PCR cycle thresholds-a value inversely correlated with viral RNA burden- with a clinical recurrence likelihood assigned based on independent, standardized case review by two physicians. "Probable" or "possible" recurrence by clinical assessment was confirmed as the final recurrence likelihood only if a cycle threshold value obtained ≥60 days after initial testing was lower than its preceding cycle threshold or if the patient had an interval negative RT-PCR. RESULTS: Among 23,176 patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, 1,301 (5.6%) had at least one additional SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs assay ≥60 days later. Of 122 testing positive, 114 had sufficient data for evaluation. The median interval to the recurrent positive RT-PCR was 85.5 (IQR 74-107) days. After combining clinical and RT-PCR cycle threshold data, four patients (3.5%) met criteria for probable COVID-19 recurrence. All four exhibited symptoms at recurrence and three required a higher level of medical care compared to their initial diagnosis. After including six additional patients (5.3%) with possible recurrence, recurrence incidence was 4.3 (95% CI 2.1-7.9) cases per 10,000 COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Only 0.04% of all COVID-19 patients in our health system experienced probable or possible recurrence; 90% of repeat positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs were not consistent with true recurrence. Our pragmatic approach combining clinical and quantitative RT-PCR data could aid assessment of COVID-19 reinfection or reactivation by clinicians and public health personnel.

Hydroxychloroquine vs. Azithromycin for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 (HAHPS): Results of a Randomized, Active Comparator Trial.

RATIONALE: The COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates. OBJECTIVE: Assess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective. RESULTS: We enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: While early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.

Clinical criteria for COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with COVID-19 develops a hyperinflammatory syndrome that has similarities with other hyperinflammatory disorders. However, clinical criteria specifically to define COVID-19-associated hyperinflammatory syndrome (cHIS) have not been established. We aimed to develop and validate diagnostic criteria for cHIS in a cohort of inpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched for clinical research articles published between Jan 1, 1990, and Aug 20, 2020, on features and diagnostic criteria for secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, macrophage activation syndrome, macrophage activation-like syndrome of sepsis, cytokine release syndrome, and COVID-19. We compared published clinical data for COVID-19 with clinical features of other hyperinflammatory or cytokine storm syndromes. Based on a framework of conserved clinical characteristics, we developed a six-criterion additive scale for cHIS: fever, macrophage activation (hyperferritinaemia), haematological dysfunction (neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio), hepatic injury (lactate dehydrogenase or asparate aminotransferase), coagulopathy (D-dimer), and cytokinaemia (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, or triglycerides). We then validated the association of the cHIS scale with in-hospital mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in consecutive patients in the Intermountain Prospective Observational COVID-19 (IPOC) registry who were admitted to hospital with PCR-confirmed COVID-19. We used a multistate model to estimate the temporal implications of cHIS. FINDINGS: We included 299 patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 between March 13 and May 5, 2020, in analyses. Unadjusted discrimination of the maximum daily cHIS score was 0·81 (95% CI 0·74-0·88) for in-hospital mortality and 0·92 (0·88-0·96) for mechanical ventilation; these results remained significant in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1·6 [95% CI 1·2-2·1], p=0·0020, for mortality and 4·3 [3·0-6·0], p<0·0001, for mechanical ventilation). 161 (54%) of 299 patients met two or more cHIS criteria during their hospital admission; these patients had higher risk of mortality than patients with a score of less than 2 (24 [15%] of 138 vs one [1%] of 161) and for mechanical ventilation (73 [45%] vs three [2%]). In the multistate model, using daily cHIS score as a time-dependent variable, the cHIS hazard ratio for worsening from low to moderate oxygen requirement was 1·4 (95% CI 1·2-1·6), from moderate oxygen to high-flow oxygen 2·2 (1·1-4·4), and to mechanical ventilation 4·0 (1·9-8·2). INTERPRETATION: We proposed and validated criteria for hyperinflammation in COVID-19. This hyperinflammatory state, cHIS, is commonly associated with progression to mechanical ventilation and death. External validation is needed. The cHIS scale might be helpful in defining target populations for trials and immunomodulatory therapies. FUNDING: Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation.