Operational challenges and mitigation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic-Lessons from DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophic disruptions in care delivery threaten the operational efficiency and potentially the validity of clinical research efforts, in particular randomized clinical trials. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic affected essentially all aspects of care delivery and clinical research conduct. While consensus statements and clinical guidance documents have detailed potential mitigation measures, few real-world experiences detailing clinical trial adaptations to the COVID-19 pandemic exist, particularly among, large, global registrational cardiovascular trials. METHODS: We outline the operational impact of COVID-19 and resultant mitigation measures in the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, one of the largest and most globally diverse experiences with COVID-19 of any cardiovascular clinical trial to date. Specifically, we address the needed coordination between academic investigators, trial leadership, clinical sites, and the supporting sponsor to ensure the safety of participants and trial staff, to maintain the fidelity of trial operations, and to prospectively adapt statistical analyses plans to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 and the pandemic at large on trial participants. These discussions included key operational issues such as ensuring delivery of study medications, adaptations to study visits, enhanced COVID-19 related endpoint adjudication, and protocol and analytical plan revisions. CONCLUSION: Our findings may have important implications for establishing consensus on prospective contingency planning in future clinical trials. CLINICALTRIAL: gov: NCT03619213. CLINICALTRIAL: GOV: NCT03619213.

Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic letter system for increasing inFLUenza vaccine uptake (NUDGE-FLU): Study protocol for a nationwide randomized implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Annual influenza vaccination is widely recommended in older adults and other high-risk groups including patients with cardiovascular disease. The real-world effectiveness of influenza vaccination is limited by suboptimal uptake and effective strategies for increasing vaccination rates are therefore needed. The purpose of this trial is to investigate whether behavioral nudges digitally delivered via the Danish nationwide mandatory governmental electronic letter system can increase influenza vaccination uptake among older adults. METHODS: The NUDGE-FLU trial is a randomized implementation trial randomizing all Danish citizens aged 65 years and above without an exemption from the Danish mandatory governmental electronic letter system to receive no digitally delivered behavioral nudge (usual care arm) or to receive one of 9 electronic letters (intervention arms) each leveraging different behavioral science strategies. The trial has randomized 964,870 participants with randomization clustered at the household level (n = 691,820 households). Intervention letters were delivered on September 16, 2022, and follow-up is currently ongoing. All trial data are captured using the nationwide Danish administrative health registries. The primary end point is the receipt of an influenza vaccine on or before January 1, 2023. The secondary end point is time to vaccination. Exploratory end points include clinical events such as hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia, cardiovascular events, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. DISCUSSION: The nationwide randomized NUDGE-FLU trial is one of the largest implementation trials ever conducted and will provide important insights into effective communication strategies to maximize vaccination uptake among high-risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05542004, registered September 15, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05542004.

Serological response to vaccination in post-acute sequelae of COVID.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC) may have a persistence in immune activation that differentiates them from individuals who have recovered from COVID without clinical sequelae. To investigate how humoral immune activation may vary in this regard, we compared patterns of vaccine-provoked serological response in patients with PASC compared to individuals recovered from prior COVID without PASC. METHODS: We prospectively studied 245 adults clinically diagnosed with PASC and 86 adults successfully recovered from prior COVID. All participants had measures of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 assayed before or after receiving their first-ever administration of COVID vaccination (either single-dose or two-dose regimen), including anti-spike (IgG-S and IgM-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (IgG-N) antibodies as well as IgG-S angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) binding levels. We used unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted regression analyses to examine the association of PASC compared to COVID-recovered status with post-vaccination measures of humoral immunity. RESULTS: Individuals with PASC mounted consistently higher post-vaccination IgG-S antibody levels when compared to COVID-recovered (median log IgG-S 3.98 versus 3.74, P < 0.001), with similar results seen for ACE2 binding levels (median 99.1 versus 98.2, P = 0.044). The post-vaccination IgM-S response in PASC was attenuated but persistently unchanged over time (P = 0.33), compared to in COVID recovery wherein the IgM-S response expectedly decreased over time (P = 0.002). Findings remained consistent when accounting for demographic and clinical variables including indices of index infection severity and comorbidity burden. CONCLUSION: We found evidence of aberrant immune response distinguishing PASC from recovered COVID. This aberrancy is marked by excess IgG-S activation and ACE2 binding along with findings consistent with a delayed or dysfunctional immunoglobulin class switching, all of which is unmasked by vaccine provocation. These results suggest that measures of aberrant immune response may offer promise as tools for diagnosing and distinguishing PASC from non-PASC phenotypes, in addition to serving as potential targets for intervention.

Feasibility of randomizing Danish citizens aged 65-79 years to high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine vs. standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine in a pragmatic registry-based setting: rationale and design of the DANFLU-1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-dose influenza vaccines provide better protection against influenza infection than standard-dose in persons aged 65 years and above; however, in most countries, high-dose vaccines are not widely implemented. Assessing the relative effectiveness of high-dose compared to standard-dose vaccines on hospitalizations and mortality would enable more robust public health and cost-effectiveness estimates. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in Denmark comparing high-dose to standard-dose vaccines utilizing existing vaccination infrastructure and the Danish nationwide health registries for data collection. METHODS: The DANFLU-1 trial (NCT05048589) is a pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled randomized trial randomizing Danish citizens aged 65-79 years to either high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine or standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine. The study utilizes the infrastructure of a private vaccination provider (Danske Lægers Vaccinations Service) for recruitment, inclusion, randomization, and vaccination. All collection of baseline and follow-up data including safety monitoring is performed centrally by the Department of Cardiology at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark using the Danish nationwide health registries. The study aims to include 40,000 participants during the 2021/2022 influenza season. The primary endpoints address feasibility and include the number of participants enrolled, randomization balance, and representativeness compared to the Danish general population. Relative vaccine effectiveness will also be assessed, however, this feasibility study is not powered for clinical outcomes and may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: The DANFLU-1 study is investigating the feasibility of conducting a large-scale pragmatic clinical trial in Denmark utilizing existing infrastructure and the Danish nationwide registries. This will provide valuable insight, especially for potential future fully powered vaccine trials, but also for trials wishing to investigate other interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT05048589 , registered September 17, 2021.

Feasibility of randomizing Danish citizens aged 65–79 years to high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine vs. standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine in a pragmatic registry-based setting: rationale and design of the DANFLU-1 Trial

Background High-dose influenza vaccines provide better protection against influenza infection than standard-dose in persons aged 65 years and above;however, in most countries, high-dose vaccines are not widely implemented. Assessing the relative effectiveness of high-dose compared to standard-dose vaccines on hospitalizations and mortality would enable more robust public health and cost-effectiveness estimates. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in Denmark comparing high-dose to standard-dose vaccines utilizing existing vaccination infrastructure and the Danish nationwide health registries for data collection. Methods The DANFLU-1 trial (NCT05048589) is a pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled randomized trial randomizing Danish citizens aged 65–79 years to either high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine or standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine. The study utilizes the infrastructure of a private vaccination provider (Danske Lægers Vaccinations Service) for recruitment, inclusion, randomization, and vaccination. All collection of baseline and follow-up data including safety monitoring is performed centrally by the Department of Cardiology at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark using the Danish nationwide health registries. The study aims to include 40,000 participants during the 2021/2022 influenza season. The primary endpoints address feasibility and include the number of participants enrolled, randomization balance, and representativeness compared to the Danish general population. Relative vaccine effectiveness will also be assessed, however, this feasibility study is not powered for clinical outcomes and may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion The DANFLU-1 study is investigating the feasibility of conducting a large-scale pragmatic clinical trial in Denmark utilizing existing infrastructure and the Danish nationwide registries. This will provide valuable insight, especially for potential future fully powered vaccine trials, but also for trials wishing to investigate other interventions. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05048589, registered September 17, 2021.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure Hospitalized With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes among patients with a history of heart failure (HF) hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic comorbidities are common in patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with HF may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 complications. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify patients with at least 1 HF hospitalization or 2 HF outpatient visits between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, who were subsequently hospitalized between April and September 2020. Baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization, and mortality rates were compared between those hospitalized with COVID-19 and those hospitalized with other causes. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were identified in HF patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1,212,153 patients with history of HF, 132,312 patients were hospitalized from April 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. A total of 23,843 patients (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute HF, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 patients (75.6%) were hospitalized with alternative reasons. Hospitalization with COVID-19 was associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality as compared with hospitalization with acute HF; 24.2% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 died in-hospital compared to 2.6% of those hospitalized with acute HF. This association was strongest in April (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 14.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]:12.25 to 17.12) than in subsequent months (adjusted OR: 10.11; 95% CI: 8.95 to 11.42; pinteraction <0.001). Among patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19, male sex (adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.40) and morbid obesity (adjusted OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.46) were associated with greater odds of in-hospital mortality, along with age (adjusted OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.42 per 10 years) and admission earlier in the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF hospitalized with COVID-19 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization.

Pre-existing traits associated with Covid-19 illness severity.

IMPORTANCE: Certain individuals, when infected by SARS-CoV-2, tend to develop the more severe forms of Covid-19 illness for reasons that remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the demographic and clinical characteristics associated with increased severity of Covid-19 infection. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. We curated data from the electronic health record, and used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association of pre-existing traits with a Covid-19 illness severity defined by level of required care: need for hospital admission, need for intensive care, and need for intubation. SETTING: A large, multihospital healthcare system in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with confirmed Covid-19 infection (N = 442). RESULTS: Of all patients studied, 48% required hospitalization, 17% required intensive care, and 12% required intubation. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, patients requiring a higher levels of care were more likely to be older (OR 1.5 per 10 years, P<0.001), male (OR 2.0, P = 0.001), African American (OR 2.1, P = 0.011), obese (OR 2.0, P = 0.021), with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.8, P = 0.037), and with a higher comorbidity index (OR 1.8 per SD, P<0.001). Several clinical associations were more pronounced in younger compared to older patients (Pinteraction<0.05). Of all hospitalized patients, males required higher levels of care (OR 2.5, P = 0.003) irrespective of age, race, or morbidity profile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In our healthcare system, greater Covid-19 illness severity is seen in patients who are older, male, African American, obese, with diabetes, and with greater overall comorbidity burden. Certain comorbidities paradoxically augment risk to a greater extent in younger patients. In hospitalized patients, male sex is the main determinant of needing more intensive care. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings.

Fewer Hospitalizations for Acute Cardiovascular Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Although patients with cardiovascular disease face excess risks of severe illness with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), there may be indirect consequences of the pandemic on this high-risk patient segment. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine longitudinal trends in hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions across a tertiary care health system. METHODS: Acute cardiovascular hospitalizations were tracked between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020. Daily hospitalization rates were estimated using negative binomial models. Temporal trends in hospitalization rates were compared across the first 3 months of 2020, with the first 3 months of 2019 as a reference. RESULTS: From January 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, 6,083 patients experienced 7,187 hospitalizations for primary acute cardiovascular reasons. There were 43.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.4% to 56.0%) fewer estimated daily hospitalizations in March 2020 compared with March 2019 (p < 0.001). The daily rate of hospitalizations did not change throughout 2019 (-0.01% per day [95% CI: -0.04% to +0.02%]; p = 0.50), January 2020 (-0.5% per day [95% CI: -1.6% to +0.5%]; p = 0.31), or February 2020 (+0.7% per day [95% CI: -0.6% to +2.0%]; p = 0.27). There was significant daily decline in hospitalizations in March 2020 (-5.9% per day [95% CI: -7.6% to -4.3%]; p < 0.001). Length of stay was shorter (4.8 days [25th to 75th percentiles: 2.4 to 8.3 days] vs. 6.0 days [25th to 75th percentiles: 3.1 to 9.6 days]; p = 0.003) and in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (6.2% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.30) in March 2020 compared with March 2019. CONCLUSIONS: During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked decline in acute cardiovascular hospitalizations, and patients who were admitted had shorter lengths of stay. These data substantiate concerns that acute care of cardiovascular conditions may be delayed, deferred, or abbreviated during the COVID-19 pandemic.