Noninvasive Ventilation for Preoxygenation during Emergency Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, hypoxemia increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. The effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 24 emergency departments and intensive care units in the United States, we randomly assigned critically ill adults (age, ≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation to receive preoxygenation with either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask. The primary outcome was hypoxemia during intubation, defined by an oxygen saturation of less than 85% during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Among the 1301 patients enrolled, hypoxemia occurred in 57 of 624 patients (9.1%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 118 of 637 patients (18.5%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -9.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -5.6; P<0.001). Cardiac arrest occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 7 patients (1.1%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1). Aspiration occurred in 6 patients (0.9%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 9 patients (1.4%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation resulted in a lower incidence of hypoxemia during intubation than preoxygenation with an oxygen mask. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; PREOXI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05267652.).

Acetaminophen for Prevention and Treatment of Organ Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis: The ASTER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has many pharmacological effects that might be beneficial in sepsis, including inhibition of cell-free hemoglobin-induced oxidation of lipids and other substrates. Objective: To determine whether acetaminophen increases days alive and free of organ dysfunction in sepsis compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted from October 2021 to April 2023 with 90-day follow-up. Adults with sepsis and respiratory or circulatory organ dysfunction were enrolled in the emergency department or intensive care unit of 40 US academic hospitals within 36 hours of presentation. Intervention: Patients were randomized to 1 g of acetaminophen intravenously every 6 hours or placebo for 5 days. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was days alive and free of organ support (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and kidney replacement therapy) to day 28. Treatment effect modification was evaluated for acetaminophen by prerandomization plasma cell-free hemoglobin level higher than 10 mg/dL. Results: Of 447 patients enrolled (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years, 51% female, mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 5.4 [SD, 2.5]), 227 were randomized to acetaminophen and 220 to placebo. Acetaminophen was safe with no difference in liver enzymes, hypotension, or fluid balance between treatment arms. Days alive and free of organ support to day 28 were not meaningfully different for acetaminophen (20.2 days; 95% CI, 18.8 to 21.6) vs placebo (19.6 days; 95% CI, 18.2 to 21.0; P = .56; difference, 0.6; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.6). Among 15 secondary outcomes, total, respiratory, and coagulation SOFA scores were significantly lower on days 2 through 4 in the acetaminophen arm as was the rate of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (2.2% vs 8.5% acetaminophen vs placebo; P = .01; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -10.8 to -1.8). There was no significant interaction between cell-free hemoglobin levels and acetaminophen. Conclusions and Relevance: Intravenous acetaminophen was safe but did not significantly improve days alive and free of organ support in critically ill sepsis patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04291508.

Validation of SeptiCyte RAPID to Discriminate Sepsis from Non-Infectious Systemic Inflammation.

(1) Background: SeptiCyte RAPID is a molecular test for discriminating sepsis from non-infectious systemic inflammation, and for estimating sepsis probabilities. The objective of this study was the clinical validation of SeptiCyte RAPID, based on testing retrospectively banked and prospectively collected patient samples. (2) Methods: The cartridge-based SeptiCyte RAPID test accepts a PAXgene blood RNA sample and provides sample-to-answer processing in ~1 h. The test output (SeptiScore, range 0-15) falls into four interpretation bands, with higher scores indicating higher probabilities of sepsis. Retrospective (N = 356) and prospective (N = 63) samples were tested from adult patients in ICU who either had the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), or were suspected of having/diagnosed with sepsis. Patients were clinically evaluated by a panel of three expert physicians blinded to the SeptiCyte test results. Results were interpreted under either the Sepsis-2 or Sepsis-3 framework. (3) Results: Under the Sepsis-2 framework, SeptiCyte RAPID performance for the combined retrospective and prospective cohorts had Areas Under the ROC Curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.82 to 0.85, a negative predictive value of 0.91 (sensitivity 0.94) for SeptiScore Band 1 (score range 0.1-5.0; lowest risk of sepsis), and a positive predictive value of 0.81 (specificity 0.90) for SeptiScore Band 4 (score range 7.4-15; highest risk of sepsis). Performance estimates for the prospective cohort ranged from AUC 0.86-0.95. For physician-adjudicated sepsis cases that were blood culture (+) or blood, urine culture (+)(+), 43/48 (90%) of SeptiCyte scores fell in Bands 3 or 4. In multivariable analysis with up to 14 additional clinical variables, SeptiScore was the most important variable for sepsis diagnosis. A comparable performance was obtained for the majority of patients reanalyzed under the Sepsis-3 definition, although a subgroup of 16 patients was identified that was called septic under Sepsis-2 but not under Sepsis-3. (4) Conclusions: This study validates SeptiCyte RAPID for estimating sepsis probability, under both the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 frameworks, for hospitalized patients on their first day of ICU admission.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in COVID-19 outpatients during BQ.1, BQ.1.1., and XBB.1.5 predominant omicron variants in three U.S. health systems: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Ritonavir-boosted Nirmatrelvir (NMV-r), a protease inhibitor with in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, can reduce risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among high-risk individuals infected with earlier variants, but less is known about its effectiveness against omicron variants BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5. We sought to evaluate effectiveness of NMV-r in BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 omicron variants by comparing hospitalisation rates to NMV-r treated patients during a previous omicron phase and to contemporaneous untreated patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-world data from three health systems in Colorado and Utah, and compared hospitalisation rates in NMV-r-treated patients in a BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant-predominant (first) phase (April 3, 2022-November 12, 2022), with a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 variant-predominant (second) phase (November 13, 2022-March 7, 2023). In the primary analysis, we used Firth logistic regression with a two-segment (phase) linear time model, and pre-specified non-inferiority bounds for the mean change between segments. In a pre-specified secondary analysis, we inferred NMV-r effectiveness in a cohort of treated and untreated patients infected during the second phase. For both analyses, the primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. Subgroup analyses assessed treatment effect heterogeneity. Findings: In the primary analysis, 28-day all-cause hospitalisation rates in NMV-r treated patients in the second phase (n = 12,061) were non-inferior compared to the first phase (n = 25,075) (198 [1.6%] vs. 345 [1.4%], adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.76 [95% CI 0.54-1.06]), with consistent results among secondary endpoints and key subgroups. Secondary cohort analyses revealed additional evidence for NMV-r effectiveness, with reduced 28-day hospitalisation rates among treated patients compared to untreated patients during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5 predominant phase (198/12,061 [1.6%] vs. 376/10,031 [3.7%], aOR 0.34 [95% CI 0.30-0.38), findings robust to additional sensitivity analyses. Interpretation: Real-world evidence from major US healthcare systems suggests ongoing NMV-r effectiveness in preventing hospitalisation during a BQ.1/BQ.1.1/XBB.1.5-predominant phase in the U.S, supporting its continued use in similar patient populations. Funding: U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Association between monoclonal antibody therapy, vaccination, and longer-term symptom resolution after acute COVID-19.

Effective therapies for reducing post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) symptoms are lacking. Evaluate the association between monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment or COVID-19 vaccination with symptom recovery in COVID-19 participants. The longitudinal survey-based cohort study was conducted from April 2021 to January 2022 across a multihospital Colorado health system. Adults ≥18 years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were included. Primary exposures were mAb treatment and COVID-19 vaccination. The primary outcome was time to symptom resolution after SARS-CoV-2 positive test date. The secondary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. Analysis included 1612 participants, 539 mAb treated, and 486 with ≥2 vaccinations. Time to symptom resolution was similar between mAb treated versus untreated patients (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.04). Time to symptom resolution was shorter for patients who received ≥2 vaccinations compared to those unvaccinated (aHR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.31-1.88). 28-day hospitalization risk was lower for patients receiving mAb therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.19-0.50) and ≥2 vaccinations (aOR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.20-0.55), compared with untreated or unvaccinated status. COVID-19 vaccination, but not mAb therapy, was associated with a shorter time to symptom resolution. Both were associated with lower 28-day hospitalization.

Viral and Host Factors Are Associated With Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Persistent mortality in adults hospitalized due to acute COVID-19 justifies pursuit of disease mechanisms and potential therapies. The aim was to evaluate which virus and host response factors were associated with mortality risk among participants in Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO/ACTIV-3) trials. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 2625 adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection randomized to 1 of 5 antiviral products or matched placebo in 114 centers on 4 continents. Uniform, site-level collection of participant baseline clinical variables was performed. Research laboratories assayed baseline upper respiratory swabs for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and plasma for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (viral Ag), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Associations between factors and time to mortality by 90 days were assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Viral Ag ≥4500 ng/L (vs <200 ng/L; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.07; 1.29-3.34), viral RNA (<35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.42; 1.09-5.34], ≥35 000 copies/mL [aHR, 2.84; 1.29-6.28], vs below detection), respiratory support (<4 L O2 [aHR, 1.84; 1.06-3.22]; ≥4 L O2 [aHR, 4.41; 2.63-7.39], or noninvasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula [aHR, 11.30; 6.46-19.75] vs no oxygen), renal impairment (aHR, 1.77; 1.29-2.42), and IL-6 >5.8 ng/L (aHR, 2.54 [1.74-3.70] vs ≤5.8 ng/L) were significantly associated with mortality risk in final adjusted analyses. Viral Ag, viral RNA, and IL-6 were not measured in real-time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline virus-specific, clinical, and biological variables are strongly associated with mortality risk within 90 days, revealing potential pathogen and host-response therapeutic targets for acute COVID-19 disease.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Real-world evaluation of bebtelovimab effectiveness during the period of COVID-19 Omicron variants, including BA.4/BA.5.

OBJECTIVES: Bebtelovimab is an anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody active against Omicron lineage variants authorized to treat high-risk outpatients with COVID-19. We sought to determine the real-world effectiveness of bebtelovimab during the Omicron phases BA.2/BA2.12.1/BA4/BA5. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection between April 6 and October 11, 2022, using health records linked to vaccine and mortality data. We used propensity scores to match of bebtelovimab-treated with untreated outpatients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were 28-day COVID-19-related hospitalization, 28-day all-cause mortality, 28-day emergency department visits, maximum respiratory support level, intensive care unit admission, and in-hospital mortality among hospitalized patients. We used logistic regression to determine bebtelovimab treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: Among 22,720 patients with SARS-COV-2 infection, 3739 bebtelovimab-treated patients were matched to 5423 untreated patients. Compared with no treatment, bebtelovimab was associated with lower odds of 28-day all-cause hospitalization (1.3% vs 2.1%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.74, P <0.001), as well as COVID-19-related hospitalization (1.0% vs 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio: 0.44 [95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.64], P <0.001). Bebtelovimab appeared to be more beneficial in lowering the odds of hospitalization among patients with two or more comorbidities (interaction P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the Omicron BA.2/BA.2.12.1/BA.4/BA.5 variant phase, bebtelovimab was associated with lower hospitalization.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREOXI trial of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen mask.

Background: Hypoxemia is a common and life-threatening complication during emergency tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. The administration of supplemental oxygen prior to the procedure ("preoxygenation") decreases the risk of hypoxemia during intubation. Research Question: Whether preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation prevents hypoxemia during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults, compared to preoxygenation with oxygen mask, remains uncertain. Study Design and Methods: The PRagmatic trial Examining OXygenation prior to Intubation (PREOXI) is a prospective, multicenter, non-blinded randomized comparative effectiveness trial being conducted in 7 emergency departments and 17 intensive care units across the United States. The trial compares preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation versus oxygen mask among 1300 critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask prior to induction. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation <85% between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. The secondary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. Enrollment began on 10 March 2022 and is expected to conclude in 2023. Interpretation: The PREOXI trial will provide important data on the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation and oxygen mask preoxygenation for the prevention of hypoxemia during emergency tracheal intubation. Specifying the protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to the conclusion of enrollment increases the rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability of the trial. Clinical trial registration number: NCT05267652.

Assessment of Symptom, Disability, and Financial Trajectories in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 at 6 Months.

Importance: Individuals who survived COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms, disabilities, and financial consequences. However, national longitudinal estimates of symptom burden remain limited. Objective: To measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19-related hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: A national US multicenter prospective cohort study with 1-, 3-, and 6-month postdischarge visits was conducted at 44 sites participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. Participants included hospitalized English- or Spanish-speaking adults without severe prehospitalization disabilities or cognitive impairment. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022. Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19 as identified with a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test. Main Outcomes and Measures: New or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with new cardiopulmonary symptoms or financial problems at 6 months. Results: A total of 825 adults (444 [54.0%] were male, and 379 [46.0%] were female) met eligibility criteria and completed at least 1 follow-up survey. Median age was 56 (IQR, 43-66) years; 253 (30.7%) participants were Hispanic, 145 (17.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 360 (43.6%) were non-Hispanic White. Symptoms, disabilities, and financial problems remained highly prevalent among hospitalization survivors at month 6. Rates increased between months 1 and 6 for cardiopulmonary symptoms (from 67.3% to 75.4%; P = .001) and fatigue (from 40.7% to 50.8%; P < .001). Decreases were noted over the same interval for prevalent financial problems (from 66.1% to 56.4%; P < .001) and functional limitations (from 55.3% to 47.3%; P = .004). Participants not reporting problems at month 1 often reported new symptoms (60.0%), financial problems (23.7%), disabilities (23.8%), or fatigue (41.4%) at month 6. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

Real-world use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in outpatients with COVID-19 during the era of omicron variants including BA.4 and BA.5 in Colorado, USA: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir is a protease inhibitor with in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir can reduce the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 among individuals at high risk infected with delta and early omicron variants. However, less is known about the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir during more recent BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron variant surges. We used our real-world data platform to evaluate the effect of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment on 28-day hospitalisation, mortality, and emergency department visits among outpatients with early symptomatic COVID-19 during a SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) predominant period in Colorado, USA. METHODS: We did a propensity-matched, retrospective, observational cohort study of non-hospitalised adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, using records from a statewide health system in Colorado. We obtained data from the electronic health records of University of Colorado Health, the largest health system in Colorado, with 13 hospitals and 141 000 annual hospital admissions, and with numerous ambulatory sites and affiliated pharmacies around the state. Included patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or nirmatrelvir-ritonavir medication order. Exclusion criteria were an order for or administration of other SARS-CoV-2 treatments within 10 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, hospitalisation at the time of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test more than 10 days before a nirmatrelvir-ritonavir order. We propensity score matched patients treated with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir with untreated patients. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Among 28 167 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 26 and Aug 25, 2022, 21 493 met the study inclusion criteria. 9881 patients received treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 11 612 were untreated. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was associated with reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation compared with no antiviral treatment (61 [0·9%] of 7168 patients vs 135 [1·4%] of 9361 patients, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·45 [95% CI 0·33-0·62]; p<0·0001). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment was also associated with reduced 28-day all-cause mortality (two [<0·1%] of 7168 patients vs 15 [0·2%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·03-0·50]; p=0·0010). Using subsequent emergency department visits as a surrogate for clinically significant relapse, we observed a decrease after nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment (283 [3·9%] of 7168 patients vs 437 [4·7%] of 9361 patients; adjusted OR 0·74 [95% CI 0·63-0·87]; p=0·0002). INTERPRETATION: Real-world evidence reported during a BA.2, BA2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5 omicron surge showed an association between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment and reduced 28-day all-cause hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and visits to the emergency department. With results that are among the first to suggest effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir for non-hospitalised patients during an omicron period inclusive of BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, these data support nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as an ongoing first-line treatment for adults acutely infected with SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Advancing Precision Medicine for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common and life-threatening cause of respiratory failure. Despite decades of research, there are no effective pharmacologic therapies to treat this disease process and mortality remains high. The shortcomings of prior translational research efforts have been increasingly attributed to the heterogeneity of this complex syndrome, which has led to an increased focus on elucidating the mechanisms underlying the interpersonal heterogeneity of ARDS. This shift in focus aims to move the field towards personalized medicine by defining subgroups of ARDS patients with distinct biology, termed endotypes, to quickly identify patients that are most likely to benefit from mechanism targeted treatments. In this review, we first provide a historical perspective and review the key clinical trials that have advanced ARDS treatment. We then review the key challenges that exist with regards to the identification of treatable traits and the implementation of personalized medicine approaches in ARDS. Lastly, we discuss potential strategies and recommendations for future research that we believe will aid in both understanding the molecular pathogenesis of ARDS and the development of personalized treatment approaches.

Change in effectiveness of sotrovimab for preventing hospitalization and mortality for at-risk COVID-19 outpatients during an Omicron BA.1 and BA.1.1-predominant phase.

OBJECTIVES: Sotrovimab effectively prevented progression to severe disease and mortality following infection with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. We sought to determine whether sotrovimab is similarly effective against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. METHODS: Observational cohort study of non-hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from December 26, 2021, to March 10, 2022, using electronic health records from a statewide health system. We propensity-matched patients not receiving authorized treatment for each patient treated with sotrovimab. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality. We also propensity-matched sotrovimab-treated patients from the Omicron and Delta phases. Logistic regression was used to determine sotrovimab effectiveness during Omicron and between variant phases. RESULTS: Of 30,247 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infected outpatients, we matched 1542 receiving sotrovimab to 3663 not receiving treatment. Sotrovimab treatment was not associated with reduced odds of 28-day hospitalization (2.5% vs 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.55, 1.19) or mortality (0.1% vs 0.2%; adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.07, 2.78). Between phases, the observed treatment OR was higher during Omicron than during Delta (OR 0.85 vs 0.39, respectively; interaction P-value = 0.053). CONCLUSION: Real-world evidence demonstrated that sotrovimab was not associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization or mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Omicron BA.1 phase.

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.

Opportunities for improved clinical trial designs in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common critical illness syndrome with high morbidity and mortality. There are no proven pharmacological therapies for ARDS. The current definition of ARDS is based on shared clinical characteristics but does not capture the heterogeneity in clinical risk factors, imaging characteristics, physiology, timing of onset and trajectory, and biology of the syndrome. There is increasing interest within the ARDS clinical trialist community to design clinical trials that reduce heterogeneity in the trial population. This effort must be balanced with ongoing work to craft an inclusive, global definition of ARDS, with important implications for trial design. Ultimately, the two aims-to design trials that are applicable to the diverse global ARDS population while also advancing opportunities to identify targetable traits-should coexist. In this Personal View, we recommend two primary strategies to improve future ARDS trials: the development of new methods to target treatable traits in clinical trial populations, and improvements in the representativeness of ARDS trials, with the inclusion of global populations. We emphasise that these two strategies are complementary. We also discuss how a proposed expansion of the definition of ARDS could affect the future of clinical trials.

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

I-SPY COVID adaptive platform trial for COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: rationale, design and operations.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic brought an urgent need to discover novel effective therapeutics for patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19. The Investigation of Serial studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging And moLecular Analysis (ISPY COVID-19 trial) was designed and implemented in early 2020 to evaluate investigational agents rapidly and simultaneously on a phase 2 adaptive platform. This manuscript outlines the design, rationale, implementation and challenges of the ISPY COVID-19 trial during the first phase of trial activity from April 2020 until December 2021. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ISPY COVID-19 Trial is a multicentre open-label phase 2 platform trial in the USA designed to evaluate therapeutics that may have a large effect on improving outcomes from severe COVID-19. The ISPY COVID-19 Trial network includes academic and community hospitals with significant geographical diversity across the country. Enrolled patients are randomised to receive one of up to four investigational agents or a control and are evaluated for a family of two primary outcomes-time to recovery and mortality. The statistical design uses a Bayesian model with 'stopping' and 'graduation' criteria designed to efficiently discard ineffective therapies and graduate promising agents for definitive efficacy trials. Each investigational agent arm enrols to a maximum of 125 patients per arm and is compared with concurrent controls. As of December 2021, 11 investigational agent arms had been activated, and 8 arms were complete. Enrolment and adaptation of the trial design are ongoing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ISPY COVID-19 operates under a central institutional review board via Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00066805. Data generated from this trial will be reported in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04488081.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (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 patients with COVID-19. 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 TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU 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 postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Real-World Evidence of the Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Sotrovimab for Preventing Hospitalization and Mortality in COVID-19 Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether sotrovimab, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment authorized for early symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, is also effective in preventing the progression of severe disease and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta variant infection. METHODS: In an observational cohort study of nonhospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1 October 2021-11 December 2021, using electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data, we used propensity matching to select 3 patients not receiving mAbs for each patient who received outpatient sotrovimab treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day hospitalization; secondary outcomes included mortality and severity of hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 10 036 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 522 receiving sotrovimab were matched to 1563 not receiving mAbs. Compared to mAb-untreated patients, sotrovimab treatment was associated with a 63% decrease in the odds of all-cause hospitalization (raw rate 2.1% vs 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], .19-.66) and an 89% decrease in the odds of all-cause 28-day mortality (raw rate 0% vs 1.0%; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, .0-.79), and may reduce respiratory disease severity among those hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence demonstrated sotrovimab effectiveness in reducing hospitalization and all-cause 28-day mortality among COVID-19 outpatients during the Delta variant phase.