An examination of loss to follow-up and potential bias in outcome ascertainment in a study of direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine associations between factors associated with loss to follow-up and effectiveness in the TelAbortion project, which provided medication abortion by direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The study population for this descriptive analysis included abortions among participants enrolled in the TelAbortion study with data present in a web-based database tool from November 2018 to September 2021 who were mailed a medication package. The analysis included information on abortions across nine sites. In this analysis, we used generalized estimating equations to examine factors associated with loss to follow-up and effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 1831 abortions included in this analysis, 1553 (84.8%) were classified as having complete follow-up and 278 (15.2%) were classified as lost to follow-up. In a multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with loss to follow-up included history of medical abortion, education, gestational age, study site, and whether the TelAbortion was performed pre- or post-COVID-19 onset (p < 0.05). The rate of treatment failure (i.e., abortions resulting in continuing pregnancy or uterine evacuation) reported in this study was 5.1%. The only covariate associated with both loss to follow-up and treatment failure was higher gestational age. However, using gestational age to impute missing abortion outcomes did not substantially change the estimated failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: Abortions that were lost to follow-up differed substantially from those with complete follow-up, which could bias the effectiveness estimate. However, imputing outcomes based on available and appropriate pretreatment data did not substantially affect the estimate. This finding is encouraging, although it does not exclude the possibility of bias due to unmeasured factors. IMPLICATIONS: Significant differences between abortion cases with complete follow-up and those lost to follow-up provide insights into abortion cases that may be at a higher risk for being lost. The low treatment failure rate indicates that the telemedicine provision of medication abortion is effective.

Validation of Sequential ROX-Index Score Beyond 12 Hours in Predicting Treatment Failure and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Receiving Oxygen via High-Flow Nasal Cannula.

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an oxygen delivery method shown to reduce the risk of intubation and mortality in patients with type 1 respiratory failure. The ROX-index score can predict HFNC failure. This study aims to evaluate sequential ROX-index assessments as predictors of HFNC failure and mortality. Methods: Prospective observational single-center study including all adult patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR placed under HFNC from 1st November 2020 to 31st May 2021, and patients with hemodynamic instability or unable to tolerate HFNC were excluded. The primary endpoint was successful HFNC de-escalation. Results: In univariate analysis, HFNC de-escalation was associated with younger age (59.2 ± 14 vs. 67.7 ± 10.5 and p < 0.001), lower levels of serum lactate (1.1 vs. 1.5 and p=0.013), and higher ROX-index at 12 hrs (5.09 vs. 4.13 and p < 0.001). ROC curve analysis of ROX-index at 12 hrs yielded a c-statistic of 71.2% (95% CI 61.6-80.9 and p < 0.001). ROX-index at 12 hrs and age retained significance in multivariate analysis. Using an optimal cutoff point of 4.43, we calculated a sensitivity of 64.5% and specificity of 69.6%. In univariate survival analysis, older age (68.8 ± 9.7 vs. 58.9 ± 13.9 and p < 0.001), greater creatinine values (0.96 vs. 0.84 and p=0.022), greater SOFA score (p=0.039), and a lower 12 hrs ROX-index (4.22 vs. 4.95 and p=0.02) were associated with hospital mortality. The SOFA score and age retained significance in multivariate survival analysis. Conclusion: ROX-index is proven to be a valuable and easy-to-use tool for clinicians in the assessment of COVID-19 patients under HFNC.

Association between treatment failure and hospitalization after receipt of neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality among early symptomatic COVID-19 patients in clinical trials and real-world data. While resistance to some mAbs has since emerged among new variants, characteristics associated with treatment failure of mAbs remain unknown. METHODS: This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with COVID-19 who received mAb treatment between November 20, 2020, and December 9, 2021. We utilized electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. The primary outcome was mAb treatment failure, defined as hospitalization or death within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: COVID-19 mAb was administered to 7406 patients. Hospitalization within 28 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test occurred in 258 (3.5%) of all patients who received mAb treatment. Ten patients (0.1%) died within 28 days, and all but one were hospitalized prior to death. Characteristics associated with treatment failure included having two or more comorbidities excluding obesity and immunocompromised status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.52-5.56), lack of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.01-3.77), non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.20-3.82), obesity (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.36-2.34), one comorbidity (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11-2.57), age ≥ 65 years (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13-2.35), and male sex (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.02). Immunocompromised status (none, mild, or moderate/severe), pandemic phase, and type of mAb received were not associated with treatment failure (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities, lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, obesity, age ≥ 65 years, and male sex are associated with treatment failure of mAbs.

Safety and efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures (DELIVER): a multi-arm, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: The monoclonal antibody eptinezumab, which targets calcitonin gene-related peptide, has shown migraine preventive effects starting the day following infusion and acceptable safety and tolerability in phase 3 trials, but benefits in the subpopulations of patients with previous preventive treatment failures were not examined. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in adults with migraine and two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures. METHODS: DELIVER was a multicentre, multi-arm, phase 3b trial comprising a 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period and a 48-week dose-blinded extension. We recruited adults with episodic or chronic migraine with at least 4 monthly migraine days (as per International Headache Society guidelines) and documented evidence of two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures within the past 10 years, from 96 study locations across Europe (n=93) and the USA (n=3). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via a centralised randomisation system, stratified by baseline monthly headache days and country, to eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (captured using a daily electronic diary) in weeks 1-12, assessed in the full analysis set. All participants and study personnel were masked to study drug assignments. The dose-blinded extension period is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04418765, and EudraCT, 2019-004497-25. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2020, and Oct 7, 2021, 891 individuals were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug (safety population; eptinezumab 100 mg n=299 [34%], eptinezumab 300 mg n=294 [33%], placebo n=298 [33%]). 865 patients completed the placebo-controlled period. The change from baseline to weeks 1-12 in mean monthly migraine days was -4·8 (SE 0·37) with eptinezumab 100 mg, -5·3 (0·37) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and -2·1 (0·38) with placebo. The difference from placebo in change in mean monthly migraine days from baseline was significant with eptinezumab 100 mg (-2·7 [95% CI -3·4 to -2·0]; p<0·0001) and eptinezumab 300 mg (-3·2 [-3·9 to -2·5]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 127 (42%) of 299 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg group, in 120 (41%) of 294 in the eptinezumab 300 mg group, and in 119 (40%) of 298 in the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was COVID-19 (20 [7%] of 299 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg group, 17 [6%] of 294 in the eptinezumab 300 mg group, and 16 [5%] of 298 in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were uncommon (five [2%] of 299 in the eptinezumab 100 mg group, seven [2%] of 294 in the eptinezumab 300 mg group, four [1%] of 298 in the placebo group) and included anaphylactic reaction (eptinezumab 300 mg n=2) and COVID-19 (eptinezumab 100 mg n=1 and eptinezumab 300 mg n=1). INTERPRETATION: In adults with migraine and two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures, eptinezumab provided significant migraine preventive effects compared with placebo, with acceptable safety and tolerability, indicating that eptinezumab might be an effective treatment option for this patient population. The dose-blinded extension period will provide additional long-term safety data in patients with migraine and previous preventive treatment failures. FUNDING: H Lundbeck.

Definition of factors associated with negative antibody response after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematological diseases.

COVID-19 in patients with hematological diseases is associated with a high mortality. Moreover, preventive vaccination demonstrated reduced efficacy and the knowledge on influencing factors is limited. In this single-center study, antibody levels of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured ≥ 2 weeks after 2nd COVID-19 vaccination with a concentration ≥ 0.8 U/mL considered positive. Between July and October 2021, in a total of 373 patients (median age 64 years, 44% women) with myeloid neoplasms (n = 214, 57%), lymphoid neoplasms (n = 124, n = 33%), and other diseases (n = 35, 10%), vaccination was performed with BNT162b2 (BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), ChADOx1 (AstraZeneca), or a combination. A total of 229 patients (61%) were on active therapy within 3 months prior vaccination and 144 patients (39%) were previously treated or treatment naïve. Vaccination-related antibody response was negative in 56/373 patients (15%): in 39/124 patients with lymphoid neoplasms, 13/214 with myeloid neoplasms, and 4/35 with other diseases. Active treatment per se was not correlated with negative response. However, rituximab and BTK inhibitor treatment were correlated significantly with a negative vaccination response, whereas younger age and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) disease were associated with positive response. In addition, 5 of 6 patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) and negative vaccination response were on active treatment with ruxolitinib. In conclusion, a remarkable percentage of patients with hematological diseases had no response after 2nd COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariable analysis revealed important factors associated with response to vaccination. The results may serve as a guide for better protection and surveillance in this vulnerable patient cohort.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

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.

Potential for the lung recruitment and the risk of lung overdistension during 21 days of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 after noninvasive ventilation failure: the COVID-VENT observational trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on the lung respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in the time course of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is limited. This study aimed to explore respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, the lung recruitability and risk of overdistension during the time course of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients (n = 116) with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units of Sechenov University. The primary endpoints were: «optimum¼ positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level balanced between the lowest driving pressure and the highest SpO2 and number of patients with recruitable lung on Days 1 and 7 of mechanical ventilation. We measured driving pressure at different levels of PEEP (14, 12, 10 and 8 cmH2O) with preset tidal volume, and with the increase of tidal volume by 100 ml and 200 ml at preset PEEP level, and calculated static respiratory system compliance (CRS), PaO2/FiO2, alveolar dead space and ventilatory ratio on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 21. RESULTS: The «optimum¼ PEEP levels on Day 1 were 11.0 (10.0-12.8) cmH2O and 10.0 (9.0-12.0) cmH2O on Day 7. Positive response to recruitment was observed on Day 1 in 27.6% and on Day 7 in 9.2% of patients. PEEP increase from 10 to 14 cmH2O and VT increase by 100 and 200 ml led to a significant decrease in CRS from Day 1 to Day 14 (p < 0.05). Ventilatory ratio was 2.2 (1.7-2,7) in non-survivors and in 1.9 (1.6-2.6) survivors on Day 1 and decreased on Day 7 in survivors only (p < 0.01). PaO2/FiO2 was 105.5 (76.2-141.7) mmHg in non-survivors on Day 1 and 136.6 (106.7-160.8) in survivors (p = 0.002). In survivors, PaO2/FiO2 rose on Day 3 (p = 0.008) and then between Days 7 and 10 (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Lung recruitability was low in COVID-19 and decreased during the course of the disease, but lung overdistension occurred at «intermediate¼ PEEP and VT levels. In survivors gas exchange improvements after Day 7 mismatched CRS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04445961 . Registered 24 June 2020-Retrospectively registered.

Treatment of chronic or relapsing COVID-19 in immunodeficiency.

BACKGROUND: Patients with some types of immunodeficiency can experience chronic or relapsing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This leads to morbidity and mortality, infection control challenges, and the risk of evolution of novel viral variants. The optimal treatment for chronic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize a cohort of patients with chronic or relapsing COVID-19 disease and record treatment response. METHODS: We conducted a UK physician survey to collect data on underlying diagnosis and demographics, clinical features, and treatment response of immunodeficient patients with chronic (lasting ≥21 days) or relapsing (≥2 episodes) of COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients (median age 49 years). Their underlying immunodeficiency was most commonly characterized by antibody deficiency with absent or profoundly reduced peripheral B-cell levels; prior anti-CD20 therapy, and X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Their clinical features of COVID-19 were similar to those of the general population, but their median duration of symptomatic disease was 64 days (maximum 300 days) and individual patients experienced up to 5 episodes of illness. Remdesivir monotherapy (including when given for prolonged courses of ≤20 days) was associated with sustained viral clearance in 7 of 23 clinical episodes (30.4%), whereas the combination of remdesivir with convalescent plasma or anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs resulted in viral clearance in 13 of 14 episodes (92.8%). Patients receiving no therapy did not clear SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 can present as a chronic or relapsing disease in patients with antibody deficiency. Remdesivir monotherapy is frequently associated with treatment failure, but the combination of remdesivir with antibody-based therapeutics holds promise.

Predictors for extubation failure in COVID-19 patients using a machine learning approach.

INTRODUCTION: Determining the optimal timing for extubation can be challenging in the intensive care. In this study, we aim to identify predictors for extubation failure in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We used highly granular data from 3464 adult critically ill COVID patients in the multicenter Dutch Data Warehouse, including demographics, clinical observations, medications, fluid balance, laboratory values, vital signs, and data from life support devices. All intubated patients with at least one extubation attempt were eligible for analysis. Transferred patients, patients admitted for less than 24 h, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded. Potential predictors were selected by a team of intensive care physicians. The primary and secondary outcomes were extubation without reintubation or death within the next 7 days and within 48 h, respectively. We trained and validated multiple machine learning algorithms using fivefold nested cross-validation. Predictor importance was estimated using Shapley additive explanations, while cutoff values for the relative probability of failed extubation were estimated through partial dependence plots. RESULTS: A total of 883 patients were included in the model derivation. The reintubation rate was 13.4% within 48 h and 18.9% at day 7, with a mortality rate of 0.6% and 1.0% respectively. The grandient-boost model performed best (area under the curve of 0.70) and was used to calculate predictor importance. Ventilatory characteristics and settings were the most important predictors. More specifically, a controlled mode duration longer than 4 days, a last fraction of inspired oxygen higher than 35%, a mean tidal volume per kg ideal body weight above 8 ml/kg in the day before extubation, and a shorter duration in assisted mode (< 2 days) compared to their median values. Additionally, a higher C-reactive protein and leukocyte count, a lower thrombocyte count, a lower Glasgow coma scale and a lower body mass index compared to their medians were associated with extubation failure. CONCLUSION: The most important predictors for extubation failure in critically ill COVID-19 patients include ventilatory settings, inflammatory parameters, neurological status, and body mass index. These predictors should therefore be routinely captured in electronic health records.

Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high efficacy of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rare breakthrough infections have been reported, including infections among health care workers. Data are needed to characterize these infections and define correlates of breakthrough and infectivity. METHODS: At the largest medical center in Israel, we identified breakthrough infections by performing extensive evaluations of health care workers who were symptomatic (including mild symptoms) or had known infection exposure. These evaluations included epidemiologic investigations, repeat reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) assays, antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT), serologic assays, and genomic sequencing. Correlates of breakthrough infection were assessed in a case-control analysis. We matched patients with breakthrough infection who had antibody titers obtained within a week before SARS-CoV-2 detection (peri-infection period) with four to five uninfected controls and used generalized estimating equations to predict the geometric mean titers among cases and controls and the ratio between the titers in the two groups. We also assessed the correlation between neutralizing antibody titers and N gene cycle threshold (Ct) values with respect to infectivity. RESULTS: Among 1497 fully vaccinated health care workers for whom RT-PCR data were available, 39 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections were documented. Neutralizing antibody titers in case patients during the peri-infection period were lower than those in matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio, 0.361; 95% confidence interval, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers were associated with lower infectivity (higher Ct values). Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks). The B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant was found in 85% of samples tested. A total of 74% of case patients had a high viral load (Ct value, <30) at some point during their infection; however, of these patients, only 17 (59%) had a positive result on concurrent Ag-RDT. No secondary infections were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Among fully vaccinated health care workers, the occurrence of breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 was correlated with neutralizing antibody titers during the peri-infection period. Most breakthrough infections were mild or asymptomatic, although persistent symptoms did occur.

Hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure prophylaxis provides no protection against COVID-19 among health care workers: a cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital in North India.

OBJECTIVES: The use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prophylaxis has been recommended by the National task force constituted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for the prevention of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare workers (HCWs). However, this recommendation was based essentially on the preclinical data and limited clinical experience. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HCQ as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 infection among Indian HCWs. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs of a tertiary care hospital in north India. The HCQ prophylaxis was initiated among 996 HCWs and they were followed up to 8 weeks for conversion to COVID-19 positive status and any adverse drug reaction (ADR). RESULTS: About 10.3% of the study participants were tested positive for COVID-19 which was comparable to the positivity rate among HCWs not taking HCQ prophylaxis (9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: HCQ was well tolerated at a weekly dose of 400 mg for 8 weeks but provided no additional benefit in prevention of COVID-19 among HCWs.

In inpatients with COVID-19, none of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, or interferon ß-1a differed from standard care for in-hospital mortality.

SOURCE CITATION: Pan H, Peto R, Henao-Restrepo AM, et al. Repurposed antiviral drugs for Covid-19-interim WHO Solidarity Trial results. N Engl J Med. 2020. [Epub ahead of print.] 33264556.

Controlling long-term SARS-CoV-2 infections can slow viral evolution and reduce the risk of treatment failure.

The rapid emergence and expansion of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants threatens our ability to achieve herd immunity for COVID-19. These novel SARS-CoV-2 variants often harbor multiple point mutations, conferring one or more evolutionarily advantageous traits, such as increased transmissibility, immune evasion and longer infection duration. In a number of cases, variant emergence has been linked to long-term infections in individuals who were either immunocompromised or treated with convalescent plasma. In this paper, we used a stochastic evolutionary modeling framework to explore the emergence of fitter variants of SARS-CoV-2 during long-term infections. We found that increased viral load and infection duration favor emergence of such variants. While the overall probability of emergence and subsequent transmission from any given infection is low, on a population level these events occur fairly frequently. Targeting these low-probability stochastic events that lead to the establishment of novel advantageous viral variants might allow us to slow the rate at which they emerge in the patient population, and prevent them from spreading deterministically due to natural selection. Our work thus suggests practical ways to achieve control of long-term SARS-CoV-2 infections, which will be critical for slowing the rate of viral evolution.