Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 41
Filter
1.
Lancet Respir Med ; 2022 Jun 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1886186

ABSTRACT

Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.

2.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846615

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. METHODS: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach 2) the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) trials "sustained recovery" approach, and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-intensive care unit setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age 68 vs. 59 years; p<0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; p<0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had post-discharge events captured by the TICO approach. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant post-discharge events within 90 days after randomization, in patients that would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Employing the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should employ follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

3.
Chest ; 2022 Apr 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1814242

ABSTRACT

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes usually are needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to evaluate new therapies rigorously for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) are a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs capture two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs are the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

4.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 2022 Apr 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784669

ABSTRACT

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 achieved worldwide dominance in late 2021. Early work suggests that infections caused by the Omicron variant may be less severe than those caused by the Delta variant. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of infections caused by these two strains, confirmed by whole genome sequencing, over a short period of time, from respiratory samples collected from SARS-CoV-2 positive patients at a large medical center. We found that infections caused by the Omicron variant caused significantly less morbidity, including admission to the hospital and requirement for oxygen supplementation, and significantly less mortality than those caused by the Delta variant.

5.
Trials ; 23(1): 273, 2022 Apr 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1779667

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a heterogeneous outcome in individuals from remaining asymptomatic to death. In a majority of cases, mild symptoms are present that do not require hospitalization and can be successfully treated in the outpatient setting, though symptoms may persist for a long duration. We hypothesize that drugs suitable for decentralized study in outpatients will have efficacy among infected outpatients METHODS: The TREAT NOW platform is designed to accommodate testing multiple agents with the ability to incorporate new agents in the future. TREAT NOW is an adaptive, blinded, multi-center, placebo-controlled superiority randomized clinical trial which started with two active therapies (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir) and placebo, with the hydroxychloroquine arm dropped shortly after enrollment began due to external evidence. Each arm has a target enrollment of 300 participants who will be randomly assigned in an equal allocation to receive either an active therapy or placebo twice daily for 14 days with daily electronic surveys collected over days 1 through 16 and on day 29 to evaluate symptoms and a modified COVID-19 ordinal outcome scale. Participants are enrolled remotely by telephone and consented with a digital interface, study drug is overnight mailed to study participants, and data collection occurs electronically without in-person interactions. DISCUSSION: If effective treatments for COVID-19 can be identified for individuals in the outpatient setting before they advance to severe disease, it will prevent progression to more severe disease, reduce the need for hospitalization, and shorten the duration of symptoms. The novel decentralized, "no touch" approach used by the TREAT NOW platform has distinction advantages over traditional in-person trials to reach broader populations and perform study procedures in a pragmatic yet rigorous manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04372628. Registered on April 30, 2020. First posted on May 4, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Outpatients , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
6.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 16(4): 680-689, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764954

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Status , Humans , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life/psychology , SARS-CoV-2
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 71(12): 459-465, 2022 Mar 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1761302

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) are effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization (1-3). However, how well mRNA vaccines protect against the most severe outcomes of these hospitalizations, including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death is uncertain. Using a case-control design, mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated IMV and in-hospital death was evaluated among adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized at 21 U.S. medical centers during March 11, 2021-January 24, 2022. During this period, the most commonly circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron). Previous vaccination (2 or 3 versus 0 vaccine doses before illness onset) in prospectively enrolled COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died within 28 days of hospitalization was compared with that among hospitalized control patients without COVID-19. Among 1,440 COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died, 307 (21%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses before illness onset. Among 6,104 control-patients, 4,020 (66%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses. Among the 1,440 case-patients who received IMV or died, those who were vaccinated were older (median age = 69 years), more likely to be immunocompromised* (40%), and had more chronic medical conditions compared with unvaccinated case-patients (median age = 55 years; immunocompromised = 10%; p<0.001 for both). VE against IMV or in-hospital death was 90% (95% CI = 88%-91%) overall, including 88% (95% CI = 86%-90%) for 2 doses and 94% (95% CI = 91%-96%) for 3 doses, and 94% (95% CI = 88%-97%) for 3 doses during the Omicron-predominant period. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19-associated death and respiratory failure treated with IMV. CDC recommends that all persons eligible for vaccination get vaccinated and stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination (4).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Respiration, Artificial , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , United States/epidemiology
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(2): 234-243, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753917

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antigens, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
9.
J Infect Dis ; 225(10): 1694-1700, 2022 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1704377

ABSTRACT

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization was evaluated among immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) during March-August 2021 using a case-control design. Among 1669 hospitalized COVID-19 cases (11% fully vaccinated) and 1950 RT-PCR-negative controls (54% fully vaccinated), VE was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-98%) among patients with no chronic medical conditions and 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%) among patients with ≥ 3 categories of conditions. VE was similar between those aged 18-64 years versus ≥65 years (P > .05). VE against severe COVID-19 was very high among adults without chronic conditions and lessened with increasing comorbidity burden.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Chronic Disease , Hospitalization , Humans , Vaccines, Synthetic
10.
Crit Care Explor ; 4(1): e0618, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1635227

ABSTRACT

To test the hypothesis that relatively lower clot strength on thromboelastography maximum amplitude (MA) is associated with development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic medical center in Nashville, TN. PATIENTS: Patients with acute respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the adult medical ICU without known VTE at enrollment. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-eight consecutive critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Thromboelastography parameters and conventional coagulation parameters were measured on days 0 (within 48 hr of ICU admission), 3, 5, and 7 after enrollment. The primary outcome was diagnosis of VTE with confirmed deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism by clinical imaging or autopsy. Twenty-six patients developed a VTE. Multivariable regression controlling for antiplatelet exposure and anticoagulation dose with death as a competing risk found that lower MA was associated with increased risk of VTE. Each 1 mm increase in enrollment and peak MA was associated with an 8% and 14% decrease in the risk of VTE, respectively (enrollment MA: subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; p = 0.003 and peak MA: SHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; p < 0.001). Lower enrollment platelet counts and fibrinogen levels were also associated with increased risk of VTE (p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively). Platelet count and fibrinogen level were positively associated with MA (multivariable model: adjusted R 2 = 0.51; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When controlling for the competing risk of death, lower enrollment and peak MA were associated with increased risk of VTE. Lower platelet counts and fibrinogen levels at enrollment were associated with increased risk of VTE. The association of diminished MA, platelet counts, and fibrinogen with VTE may suggest a relative consumptive coagulopathy in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

11.
iScience ; 25(1): 103602, 2022 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561444

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed an urgent need for rapid profiling of neutralizing antibody responses and development of antibody therapeutics. The current Food and Drug Administration-approved serological tests do not measure antibody-mediated viral neutralization, and there is a need for standardized quantitative neutralization assays. We report a high-throughput two-step profiling approach for identifying neutralizing convalescent plasma. Screening and downselection for serum antibody binding to the receptor-binding domain are followed by quantitative neutralization testing using a chimeric vesicular stomatitis virus expressing spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a real-time cell analysis assay. This approach enables a predictive screening process for identifying plasma units that neutralize SARS-CoV-2. To calibrate antibody neutralizing activity in serum from convalescent plasma donors, we introduce a neutralizing antibody standard reagent composed of two human antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV strains, including SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Our results provide a framework for establishing a standardized assessment of antibody-based interventions against COVID-19.

12.
JAMA ; 326(20): 2043-2054, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544165

ABSTRACT

Importance: A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. Objective: To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines-mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)-and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. Exposures: COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P < .001) and weaker at more than 120 days since vaccination with BNT162b2 (5.8% vs 11.5%; aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) than with mRNA-1273 (1.9% vs 8.3%; aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23) (P < .001). Among 1197 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, death or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 28 was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (12.0% vs 24.7%; aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/classification , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/classification , Case-Control Studies , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Vaccination
13.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(8): 1459-1468, 2021 10 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490480

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against a spectrum of severe disease, including critical illness and death, remains poorly characterized. METHODS: We conducted a test-negative study in an intensive care unit (ICU) network at 10 US hospitals to evaluate VE for preventing influenza-associated severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) during the 2019-2020 season, which was characterized by circulation of drifted A/H1N1 and B-lineage viruses. Cases were adults hospitalized in the ICU and a targeted number outside the ICU (to capture a spectrum of severity) with laboratory-confirmed, influenza-associated SARI. Test-negative controls were frequency-matched based on hospital, timing of admission, and care location (ICU vs non-ICU). Estimates were adjusted for age, comorbidities, and other confounders. RESULTS: Among 638 patients, the median (interquartile) age was 57 (44-68) years; 286 (44.8%) patients were treated in the ICU and 42 (6.6%) died during hospitalization. Forty-five percent of cases and 61% of controls were vaccinated, which resulted in an overall VE of 32% (95% CI: 2-53%), including 28% (-9% to 52%) against influenza A and 52% (13-74%) against influenza B. VE was higher in adults 18-49 years old (62%; 95% CI: 27-81%) than those aged 50-64 years (20%; -48% to 57%) and ≥65 years old (-3%; 95% CI: -97% to 46%) (P = .0789 for interaction). VE was significantly higher against influenza-associated death (80%; 95% CI: 4-96%) than nonfatal influenza illness. CONCLUSIONS: During a season with drifted viruses, vaccination reduced severe influenza-associated illness among adults by 32%. VE was high among young adults.


Subject(s)
Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype , Influenza B virus , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Seasons , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination , Young Adult
14.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e052013, 2021 10 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501717

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical ventilation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients universally involves titration of the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2). However, the optimal SpO2 target remains unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Pragmatic Investigation of optimaL Oxygen Targets (PILOT) trial is a prospective, unblinded, pragmatic, cluster-crossover trial being conducted in the emergency department (ED) and medical ICU at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. PILOT compares use of a lower SpO2 target (target 90% and goal range: 88%-92%), an intermediate SpO2 target (target 94% and goal range: 92%-96%) and a higher SpO2 target (target 98% and goal range: 96%-100%). The study units are assigned to a single SpO2 target (cluster-level allocation) for each 2-month study block, and the assigned SpO2 target switches every 2 months in a randomly generated sequence (cluster-level crossover). The primary outcome is ventilator-free days (VFDs) to study day 28, defined as the number of days alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation from the final receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation through 28 days after enrolment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 25 May 2018 prior to initiation of patient enrolment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03537937).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Oxygen , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
15.
JAMA ; 326(20): 2043-2054, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1499190

ABSTRACT

Importance: A comprehensive understanding of the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination requires consideration of disease attenuation, determined as whether people who develop COVID-19 despite vaccination have lower disease severity than unvaccinated people. Objective: To evaluate the association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines-mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)-and COVID-19 hospitalization, and, among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the association with progression to critical disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A US 21-site case-control analysis of 4513 adults hospitalized between March 11 and August 15, 2021, with 28-day outcome data on death and mechanical ventilation available for patients enrolled through July 14, 2021. Date of final follow-up was August 8, 2021. Exposures: COVID-19 vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations were evaluated between prior vaccination and (1) hospitalization for COVID-19, in which case patients were those hospitalized for COVID-19 and control patients were those hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis; and (2) disease progression among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, in which cases and controls were COVID-19 patients with and without progression to death or mechanical ventilation, respectively. Associations were measured with multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 4513 patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 45-69]; 2202 [48.8%] women; 23.0% non-Hispanic Black individuals, 15.9% Hispanic individuals, and 20.1% with an immunocompromising condition), 1983 were case patients with COVID-19 and 2530 were controls without COVID-19. Unvaccinated patients accounted for 84.2% (1669/1983) of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (cases, 15.8%; controls, 54.8%; adjusted OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13-0.18), including for sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha (8.7% vs 51.7%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16) and Delta variants (21.9% vs 61.8%; aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.21). This association was stronger for immunocompetent patients (11.2% vs 53.5%; aOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09-0.13) than immunocompromised patients (40.1% vs 58.8%; aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69) (P < .001) and weaker at more than 120 days since vaccination with BNT162b2 (5.8% vs 11.5%; aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.27-0.49) than with mRNA-1273 (1.9% vs 8.3%; aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.23) (P < .001). Among 1197 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, death or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 28 was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (12.0% vs 24.7%; aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: Vaccination with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was significantly less likely among patients with COVID-19 hospitalization and disease progression to death or mechanical ventilation. These findings are consistent with risk reduction among vaccine breakthrough infections compared with absence of vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/classification , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/classification , Case-Control Studies , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Vaccination
16.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(38): 1337-1343, 2021 Sep 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1436415

ABSTRACT

Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p<0.001). Protection for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine declined 4 months after vaccination. Postvaccination anti-spike IgG and anti-RBD IgG levels were significantly lower in persons vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine than the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. Although these real-world data suggest some variation in levels of protection by vaccine, all FDA-approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Immunocompromised Host/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Young Adult
17.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(47): 1762-1766, 2020 Nov 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389859

ABSTRACT

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and <1.0 at the follow-up visit, was assessed. Overall, 194 (6.0%) of 3,248 participants had detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1). Upon repeat testing approximately 60 days later (range = 50-91 days), 146 (93.6%) of 156 participants experienced a decline in antibody response indicated by a lower signal-to-threshold ratio at the follow-up visit, compared with the baseline visit, and 44 (28.2%) experienced seroreversion. Participants with higher initial antibody responses were more likely to have antibodies detected at the follow-up test than were those who had a lower initial antibody response. Whether decay in these antibodies increases risk for reinfection and disease remains unanswered. However, these results suggest that serology testing at a single time point is likely to underestimate the number of persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a negative serologic test result might not reliably exclude prior infection.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
18.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(35): 1221-1226, 2020 Sep 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389852

ABSTRACT

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States/epidemiology
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(5): e047790, 2021 05 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376497

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Intubation-related complications are less frequent when intubation is successful on the first attempt. The rate of first attempt success in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) is typically less than 90%. The bougie, a semirigid introducer that can be placed into the trachea to facilitate a Seldinger-like technique of tracheal intubation and is typically reserved for difficult or failed intubations, might improve first attempt success. Evidence supporting its use, however, is from a single academic ED with frequent bougie use. Validation of these findings is needed before widespread implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BOugie or stylet in patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in six EDs and six ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol 1106 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 for the use of a bougie or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is severe hypoxaemia, defined as an oxygen saturation less than 80% between induction until 2 min after completion of intubation. Enrolment began on 29 April 2019 and is expected to be completed in 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the Central Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at an enrolling site. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03928925).


Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Intubation, Intratracheal , Adult , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Trachea
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL