Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
ACS ES&T water ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1871799

ABSTRACT

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, wastewater surveillance has become a useful tool for describing SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in populations of varying size, from individual facilities (e.g., university residence halls, nursing homes, prisons) to entire municipalities. Wastewater analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA requires specialized equipment, expensive consumables, and expert staff, limiting its feasibility and scalability. Further, the extremely labile nature of viral RNA complicates sample transportation, especially in regions with limited access to reliable cold chains. Here, we present a new method for wastewater analysis, termed exclusion-based sample preparation (ESP), that substantially simplifies workflow (at least 70% decrease in time;40% decrease in consumable usage compared with traditional techniques) by targeting the labor-intensive processing steps of RNA purification and concentration. To optimize and validate this method, we analyzed wastewater samples from residence halls at the University of Kentucky, of which 34% (44/129) contained detectible SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Although concurrent clinical testing was not comprehensive, student infections were identified in the 7 days following a positive wastewater detection in 68% of samples. This pilot study among university residence halls validated the performance and utility of the ESP method, laying the foundation for future studies in regions of the world where wastewater testing is not currently feasible. This work expands on the design process of an efficient and simplified wastewater-based pathogen surveillance methodology and its application in public health.

2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(4): e226920, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1782544

ABSTRACT

Importance: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but the association with patient outcomes is understudied. Objectives: To evaluate whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization and death compared with nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients and whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study evaluated high-risk outpatients in a learning health system in the US with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021, who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also studied. Exposures: Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of 600 mg of casirivimab and 600 mg of imdevimab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios and differences in hospitalization, death, a composite end point of emergency department admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Among 1959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, 969 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [16.7] years; 547 women [56.4%]) who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (22 of 653 patients) compared with 7.0% (92 of 1306 patients) in nontreated controls (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .002). Among 2185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n = 969) or intravenous (n = 1216; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [16.6] years; 672 women [54.4%]) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 2.8% vs 1.7%, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -0.6% to 3.5%; P = .16). Among all infusion patients, there was no difference in intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 5.0%) or need for mechanical ventilation (adjusted risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 5.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms, subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab was associated with reduced hospitalization and death when compared with no treatment. These results provide preliminary evidence of potential expanded use of subcutaneous mAb treatment, particularly in areas that are facing treatment capacity and/or staffing shortages.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Curr Oncol ; 29(3): 1723-1743, 2022 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731961

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada's health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public-private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Canada , Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Leadership , Pandemics
4.
JAMA ; 327(3): 227-236, 2022 01 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1669289

ABSTRACT

Importance: Platelets represent a potential therapeutic target for improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and risks of adding a P2Y12 inhibitor to anticoagulant therapy among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, bayesian, adaptive randomized clinical trial including 562 non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was conducted between February 2021 and June 2021 at 60 hospitals in Brazil, Italy, Spain, and the US. The date of final 90-day follow-up was September 15, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of heparin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 293) or a therapeutic dose of heparin only (usual care) (n = 269) in a 1:1 ratio for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The composite primary outcome was organ support-free days evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and, for those who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of respiratory or cardiovascular organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization (range, -1 to 21 days; higher scores indicate less organ support and better outcomes). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding by 28 days as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Results: Enrollment of non-critically ill patients was discontinued when the prespecified criterion for futility was met. All 562 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.7 [SD, 13.5] years; 41.5% women) completed the trial and 87% received a therapeutic dose of heparin by the end of study day 1. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 63% of patients and clopidogrel in 37%. The median number of organ support-free days was 21 days (IQR, 20-21 days) among patients in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and was 21 days (IQR, 21-21 days) in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% credible interval, 0.55-1.25]; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 96%). Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients (2.0%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and in 2 patients (0.7%) in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio, 3.31 [95% CI, 0.64-17.2]; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in addition to a therapeutic dose of heparin, compared with a therapeutic dose of heparin only, did not result in an increased odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days during hospitalization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Inpatients , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Clopidogrel/administration & dosage , Clopidogrel/adverse effects , Comorbidity , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Platelet Activation/drug effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Receptors, Purinergic P2Y12 , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Thrombosis/epidemiology , Ticagrelor/administration & dosage , Ticagrelor/adverse effects , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293375

ABSTRACT

Importance: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID 19;however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but association with patient outcomes is understudied. Objective: To evaluate whether or not, i.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28 days hospitalization/death than non-treatment among mAb-eligible patients, and ii.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of outpatients in a learning health system in the United States with mild to moderate COVID 19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021 who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also selected. Intervention: Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of casirivimab 600mg and imdevimab 600mg. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the 28 day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28 day adjusted risk ratios/differences of hospitalization, death, composite endpoint of ED admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Results: Among 1,956 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID 19, patients who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization/death of 3.4% (n=652) compared to 7.8% (n=1,304) in nontreated controls [risk ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.68, p < .001)]. Among 2,185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n=969) or intravenous (n=1,216) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28 day rate of hospitalization/death was 2.8% vs. 1.7%, respectively which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: -0.5% to 3.5%, p=.14). The 28 day adjusted risk differences (subcutaneous and intravenous) for death, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were 0.3% or less, although the 95% confidence intervals were wide. Conclusions and Relevance: Subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab is associated with reduced risk adjusted hospitalization or death amongst outpatients with mild to moderate COVID 19 compared to no treatment and indicates low adjusted risk difference compared to patients treated intravenously.

6.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1170, 2021 Nov 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526605

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
7.
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series ; No. 27882, 2020.
Article in English | NBER, Grey literature | ID: grc-748218

ABSTRACT

We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional randomized clinical trials and adaptive and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 504 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits—averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design—if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.

8.
Am J Infect Control ; 49(9): 1158-1161, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1375882

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among health care workers (HCW) at University of Kentucky HealthCare (UKHC) by evaluating the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of HCW at UKHC. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody seropositivity was measured in a CLIA-certified laboratory utilizing the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay. Demographics and work type were self-reported by study participants via an emailed survey. RESULTS: The overall antibody positivity rate of HCW was 1.55% (5/322; 95% confidence interval: 0.65%-3.71%) at cohort entry. There were no differences in antibody positivity between those that worked directly with SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and those that did not. The antibody rate of positivity of patients during the same time period was similar, 1.8% (9/499; 95% confidence interval 0.94%-3.45%). CONCLUSIONS: Antibody positivity was low and similar between HCW and patients tested during a similar time period. HCW positivity rates did not appear to be impacted by caring for known SARS-CoV-2 infected patients suggesting that appropriate use of personal protective equipment is effective in protecting individuals from transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Academic Medical Centers , Health Personnel , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Tertiary Healthcare
9.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 790-802, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Survival Analysis
10.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0255228, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1334774

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The development of a prognostic mortality risk model for hospitalized COVID-19 patients may facilitate patient treatment planning, comparisons of therapeutic strategies, and public health preparations. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients hospitalized within a 13-hospital New Jersey USA network between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020 with positive polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2, with follow-up through May 29, 2020. With death or hospital discharge by day 40 as the primary endpoint, we used univariate followed by stepwise multivariate proportional hazard models to develop a risk score on one-half the data set, validated on the remainder, and converted the risk score into a patient-level predictive probability of 40-day mortality based on the combined dataset. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 3123 hospitalized COVID-19 patients; median age 63 years; 60% were men; 42% had >3 coexisting conditions. 713 (23%) patients died within 40 days of hospitalization for COVID-19. From 22 potential candidate factors 6 were found to be independent predictors of mortality and were included in the risk score model: age, respiratory rate ≥25/minute upon hospital presentation, oxygenation <94% on hospital presentation, and pre-hospital comorbidities of hypertension, coronary artery disease, or chronic renal disease. The risk score was highly prognostic of mortality in a training set and confirmatory set yielding in the combined dataset a hazard ratio of 1.80 (95% CI, 1.72, 1.87) for one unit increases. Using observed mortality within 20 equally sized bins of risk scores, a predictive model for an individual's 40-day risk of mortality was generated as -14.258 + 13.460*RS + 1.585*(RS-2.524)^2-0.403*(RS-2.524)^3. An online calculator of this 40-day COVID-19 mortality risk score is available at www.HackensackMeridianHealth.org/CovidRS. CONCLUSIONS: A risk score using six variables is able to prognosticate mortality within 40-days of hospitalization for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347993.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Models, Biological , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Time Factors
12.
Trials ; 22(1): 363, 2021 May 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1243818

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. TRIAL DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization PARTICIPANTS: We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable - e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. RANDOMISATION: We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786 . Registered March 10, 2021 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Bayes Theorem , Humans , Random Allocation , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
13.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 17(7): 879-891, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-679536

ABSTRACT

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).


Subject(s)
Community-Acquired Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Influenza, Human/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia/therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Pandemics , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2
14.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244418, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999841

ABSTRACT

We compare and contrast the expected duration and number of infections and deaths averted among several designs for clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, including traditional and adaptive randomized clinical trials and human challenge trials. Using epidemiological models calibrated to the current pandemic, we simulate the time course of each clinical trial design for 756 unique combinations of parameters, allowing us to determine which trial design is most effective for a given scenario. A human challenge trial provides maximal net benefits-averting an additional 1.1M infections and 8,000 deaths in the U.S. compared to the next best clinical trial design-if its set-up time is short or the pandemic spreads slowly. In most of the other cases, an adaptive trial provides greater net benefits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/standards , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
15.
Clin Trials ; 17(5): 491-500, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-724657

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mortality from COVID-19 is high among hospitalized patients and effective therapeutics are lacking. Hypercoagulability, thrombosis and hyperinflammation occur in COVID-19 and may contribute to severe complications. Therapeutic anticoagulation may improve clinical outcomes through anti-thrombotic, anti-inflammatory and anti-viral mechanisms. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin prevents mechanical ventilation and/or death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to usual care. METHODS: An international, open-label, adaptive randomized controlled trial. Using a Bayesian framework, the trial will declare results as soon as pre-specified posterior probabilities for superiority, futility, or harm are reached. The trial uses response-adaptive randomization to maximize the probability that patients will receive the more beneficial treatment approach, as treatment effect information accumulates within the trial. By leveraging a common data safety monitoring board and pooling data with a second similar international Bayesian adaptive trial (REMAP-COVID anticoagulation domain), treatment efficacy and safety will be evaluated as efficiently as possible. The primary outcome is an ordinal endpoint with three possible outcomes based on the worst status of each patient through day 30: no requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSION: Using an adaptive trial design, the Anti-Thrombotic Therapy To Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 trial will establish whether therapeutic anticoagulation can reduce mortality and/or avoid the need for mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Leveraging existing networks to recruit sites will increase enrollment and mitigate enrollment risk in sites with declining COVID-19 cases.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/etiology , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
16.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237693, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-713539

ABSTRACT

Hydroxychloroquine has been touted as a potential COVID-19 treatment. Tocilizumab, an inhibitor of IL-6, has also been proposed as a treatment of critically ill patients. In this retrospective observational cohort study drawn from electronic health records we sought to describe the association between mortality and hydroxychloroquine or tocilizumab therapy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were hospitalized at a 13-hospital network spanning New Jersey USA between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020 with positive polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2. Follow up was through May 5, 2020. Among 2512 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 there have been 547 deaths (22%), 1539 (61%) discharges and 426 (17%) remain hospitalized. 1914 (76%) received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and 1473 (59%) received hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin. After adjusting for imbalances via propensity modeling, compared to receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in associated mortality for patients receiving any hydroxychloroquine during the hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.80-1.22]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83-1.27]), or hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.28]). The 30-day unadjusted mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, the combination or neither drug was 25%, 20%, 18%, and 20%, respectively. Among 547 evaluable ICU patients, including 134 receiving tocilizumab in the ICU, an exploratory analysis found a trend towards an improved survival association with tocilizumab treatment (adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.00]), with 30 day unadjusted mortality with and without tocilizumab of 46% versus 56%. This observational cohort study suggests hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, was not associated with a survival benefit among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab demonstrated a trend association towards reduced mortality among ICU patients. Our findings are limited to hospitalized patients and must be interpreted with caution while awaiting results of randomized trials. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347993.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Child , Child, Preschool , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL