Challenges for a broad international implementation of the current severe community-acquired pneumonia guidelines.

Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) remains one of the leading causes of admission to the intensive care unit, thus consuming a large share of resources and is associated with high mortality rates worldwide. The evidence generated by clinical studies in the last decade was translated into recommendations according to the first published guidelines focusing on severe community-acquired pneumonia. Despite the advances proposed by the present guidelines, several challenges preclude the prompt implementation of these diagnostic and therapeutic measures. The present article discusses the challenges for the broad implementation of the sCAP guidelines and proposes solutions when applicable.

Temporal Trends in Methamphetamine Use in Patients Admitted to the Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Although methamphetamine use is common, the scope of methamphetamine use and outcomes for patients admitted to the hospital is unclear. This study aims to identify the prevalence of methamphetamine use from January 2012 to January 2022, coingestions, hospital course, and readmission rate of admitted patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on patients admitted to our center with the following inclusions: age older than 18 years, positive/"pending confirm" value for methamphetamine on urine drug screen, and/or an International Classification of Diseases , Tenth Revision , code related to stimulant use disorder as an active issue. Urine drug screen data are reported as methamphetamine +/- and polysubstance (PS) +/-. Patient demographics, admission diagnosis, and hospital course were extracted. Statistical tests used included t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A total of 19,159 encounters were included, representing 12,057 unique patients. The median (interquartile range) age was 43 (33-54) years. Of all encounters, 35.3% were methamphetamine + and PS -, and 46.3% were methamphetamine + and PS +. Hospitalizations increased from 883 in 2012 to 2532 in 2021. The median (IQR) hospital stay was 48 (48-120) hours. Of all encounters, 16.8% included an intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the median ICU stay was 42 (21-87) hours. A total of 2988 patients (24.7%) were readmitted within the study period, and 4988 (71.5%) returned within 1 year of the previous encounter. In context of all emergency department admissions from 2013 to 2022, 13.1% had a urine drug screen + for methamphetamine. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalizations with recent methamphetamine use doubled at our institution from 2012 to 2022. In addition, 1 in 4 is readmitted (typically within 1 year), and a minority requires ICU care.

Choosing immunomodulating therapies for the treatment of COVID-19: recommendations based on placebo-controlled trial evidence.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulatory therapy has been extensively studied in randomized clinical trials for the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inconsistent findings. Guideline committees, reviewing the same clinical trial data, have generated different recommendations for immunomodulatory therapy. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that trial design differences, specifically whether the study utilized an open-label or placebo-controlled design, accounted for the inconsistent mortality effects reported in clinical trials of immunomodulator therapies for COVID-19. SOURCES: We reviewed COVID-19 treatment guidelines (World Health Organization [WHO], Infectious Diseases Society of America [IDSA] and The National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and identified the meta-analyses associated with glucocorticoids, IL-6 inhibitors, JAK kinase inhibitors, and complement C5a inhibitors that were available to the guideline authors at the time recommendations were either made or updated. CONTENT: We identified a meta-analysis for each of the immunomodulator classes that are included in current COVID-19 treatment guidelines: glucocorticoids [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), IL-6 antagonists [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), JAK inhibitors [Kramer A, Prinz C, Fichtner F, Fischer AL, Thieme V, Grundeis F, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6:CD015209] (cited 34), and complement C5a inhibitors [Tsai CL, Lai CC, Chen CY, Lee HS. The efficacy and safety of complement C5a inhibitors for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21:77-86] (cited 1). Using the same randomized clinical trials, we evaluated the four meta-analyses accounting for trial design: placebo-controlled or open-label. Glucocorticoids (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49-1.69]), IL-6 inhibitors sarilumab (RR 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-01.43]), and tocilizumab (RR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.19]) did not reduce mortality in placebo-controlled trials, whereas baricitinib did confer a large survival benefit (RR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). The complement C5a inhibitor, vilobelimab, also reduced mortality in a single placebo-controlled trial (RR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.0]). IMPLICATIONS: Placebo-controlled trial evidence indicates that baricitinib should be the first choice immunomodulator for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who require any form of oxygen support-low- or high-flow oxygen, non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Vilobelimab warrants study in a large placebo-controlled trial. Treatment guidelines for future pandemics should prioritize the results of placebo-controlled trials.

Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

Secondary infections in critically ill patients with COVID-19 receiving steroid therapy.

Secondary infections can occur during or after the treatment of an initial infection. Glucocorticoids may decrease mortality in patients with severe COVID-19; however, risk of secondary infection is not well described. Our primary objective was to investigate the risk of secondary infection among critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with glucocorticoids. We examined patients with COVID-19 being treated in the intensive care unit at two academic medical centers from 1 to 7/2020. One hundred-seven patients were included. Of these, 31 received steroids and 76 patients did not. Analysis of the larger cohort was performed followed by a matched pairs analysis of 22 steroid and 22 non-steroid patients. Secondary infection was seen in 14 patients (45.2%) receiving steroids compared to 35(46.1%) not receiving steroids (p = 0.968). Secondary infections were most frequently encountered in the respiratory tract. Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequently identified organisms. Mortality was 16.1% in the steroid-treated group compared to 23.7% in the control group (p = 0.388). After performing matched pairs analysis and multivariable logistic regression there was no significant difference between secondary infection or mortality and steroid receipt. Secondary infections were common among critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the incidence of secondary infection was not significantly impacted by steroid treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 post-acute sequelae in previously hospitalised patients: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals hospitalised with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection experience post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), sometimes referred to as "long COVID". Our objective was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify PASC-associated symptoms in previously hospitalised patients and determine the frequency and temporal nature of PASC. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library (2019-2021), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and reference lists were performed from November to December 2021. Articles were assessed by two reviewers against eligibility criteria and a risk of bias tool. Symptom data were synthesised by random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Of 6942 records, 52 studies with at least 100 patients were analysed; ∼70% were Europe-based studies. Most data were from the first wave of the pandemic. PASC symptoms were analysed from 28 days after hospital discharge. At 1-4 months post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, the most frequent individual symptoms were fatigue (29.3% (95% CI 20.1-40.6%)) and dyspnoea (19.6% (95% CI 12.8-28.7%)). Many patients experienced at least one symptom at 4-8 months (73.1% (95% CI 44.2-90.3%)) and 8-12 months (75.0% (95% CI 56.4-87.4%)). CONCLUSIONS: A wide spectrum of persistent PASC-associated symptoms were reported over the 1-year follow-up period in a significant proportion of participants. Further research is needed to better define PASC duration and determine whether factors such as disease severity, vaccination and treatments have an impact on PASC.

Evaluating Demographic Representation in Clinical Trials: Use of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment Trial (ACTT) as a Test Case.

Background: Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods: We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results: US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions: Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Baricitinib Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Is Associated With a Reduction in Secondary Infections.

We performed a secondary analysis of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) randomized controlled trial and found that baricitinib was associated with a 50% reduction in secondary infections after controlling for baseline and postrandomization patient characteristics. This finding provides a novel mechanism of benefit for baricitinib and supports the safety profile of this immunomodulator for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

How to use biomarkers of infection or sepsis at the bedside: guide to clinicians.

Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. In this context, biomarkers could be considered as indicators of either infection or dysregulated host response or response to treatment and/or aid clinicians to prognosticate patient risk. More than 250 biomarkers have been identified and evaluated over the last few decades, but no biomarker accurately differentiates between sepsis and sepsis-like syndrome. Published data support the use of biomarkers for pathogen identification, clinical diagnosis, and optimization of antibiotic treatment. In this narrative review, we highlight how clinicians could improve the use of pathogen-specific and of the most used host-response biomarkers, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, to improve the clinical care of patients with sepsis. Biomarker kinetics are more useful than single values in predicting sepsis, when making the diagnosis and assessing the response to antibiotic therapy. Finally, integrated biomarker-guided algorithms may hold promise to improve both the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. Herein, we provide current data on the clinical utility of pathogen-specific and host-response biomarkers, offer guidance on how to optimize their use, and propose the needs for future research.

Supportive Care in Patients with Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Specific therapies for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have limited efficacy in the event a patient worsens clinically and requires admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Thus, providing quality supportive care is essential to the overall management of patients with critical COVID-19. Patients with respiratory failure not requiring intubation should be supported with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, or high flow oxygenation. Use of these respiratory modalities may prevent patients from subsequently requiring intubation. Basic components of supportive care for the critically ill should be applied equally to patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The diagnostic utility of procalcitonin is limited in the setting of methamphetamine toxicity.

Procalcitonin (PCT) is a biomarker with greater specificity for bacterial infection than other current laboratory markers. However, PCT can also be elevated in the setting of several noninfectious conditions. A recent case report describes a patient with elevated PCT in the context of acute methamphetamine intoxication, but without evidence of infection. Thus far, no studies have evaluated the diagnostic utility of PCT in patients with active methamphetamine use. We seek to test the hypothesis that PCT has diminished utility in patients who use methamphetamine presenting to the Emergency Department (ED). We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to an academic ED between May 2017 and July 2019. We included patients ≥18 years of age with a positive urine methamphetamine test and at least two PCT results. Pregnant patients were excluded. Cases were classified as microbiologically documented infection, clinically documented infection, possible infection, or no infection by clinician review. A positive PCT value was defined as ≥0.5 ng/ml. The performance of PCT as a diagnostic test for bacterial infection in this population was then evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, false negative rate, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We identified 143 patients, including 75 with recorded PCT levels ≥0.5 ng/ml and 93 with microbiologically or clinically documented bacterial infection. The sensitivity and specificity of PCT for bacterial infection in this study population was 60% and 64%, respectively. The false positive rate was 36% while the false negative rate was 40%. The area under the ROC curve was 0.65. Additionally, we describe 8 patients with confirmed absence of infection but with elevated PCT, 4 of whom had serum values >10 ng/ml. The results suggest that PCT has poor diagnostic utility for bacterial infection in patients with active methamphetamine use presenting to the ED.

Deconstructing the Treatment Effect of Remdesivir in the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1: Implications for Critical Care Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .59-.91) and increased clinical improvement (HR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: .57-.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Integrated Multiorgan Bedside Ultrasound for the Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock.

Despite decades of research, the mortality rate of sepsis and septic shock remains unacceptably high. Delays in diagnosis, identification of an infectious source, and the challenge of providing patient-tailored resuscitation measures routinely result in suboptimal patient outcomes. Bedside ultrasound improves a clinician's ability to both diagnose and manage the patient with sepsis. Indeed, multiple point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) protocols have been developed to evaluate and treat various subsets of critically ill patients. These protocols mostly target patients with undifferentiated shock and have been shown to improve clinical outcomes. Other studies have shown that POCUS can improve a clinician's ability to identify a source of infection. Once a diagnosis of septic shock has been made, serial POCUS exams can be used to continuously guide resuscitative efforts. In this review, we advocate that the patient with suspected sepsis or septic shock undergo a comprehensive POCUS exam in which sonographic information across organ systems is synthesized and used in conjunction with traditional data gleaned from the patient's history, physical exam, and laboratory studies. This harmonization of information will hasten an accurate diagnosis and assist with hemodynamic management.

Coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure: what is the best supportive care for patients who require ICU admission?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Currently, there is no cure for SARS-CoV-2 infection, yet hospital mortality rates for COVID-19 have improved over the course of the pandemic and may be due in part to improved supportive care in the ICU. This review highlights the evidence for and against various ICU supportive therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: Early in the pandemic, there was great interest in novel ICU supportive care, both for the benefit of the patient, and the safety of clinicians. With a few exceptions (e.g. prone ventilation of nonintubated patients), clinicians abandoned most of these approaches (e.g. early intubation, avoidance of high flow or noninvasive ventilation). Standard critical care measures, especially for the treatment of severe viral respiratory infection including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were applied to patients with COVID-19 with apparent success. SUMMARY: In general, the COVID-19 pandemic reaffirmed the benefits of standard supportive care for respiratory failure and in particular, recent advances in ARDS treatment. Prone ventilation of nonintubated patients, an approach that was adopted early in the pandemic, is associated with improvement in oxygenation, but its impact on clinical outcome remains unclear. Otherwise, prone mechanical ventilation and avoidance of excessive tidal volumes, conservative fluid management, antibiotic stewardship and early evaluation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) -- basic tenants of severe respiratory infections and ARDS care -- remain at the core of management of patients with severe COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 detection status associates with bacterial community composition in patients and the hospital environment.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Viruses exist in complex microbial environments, and recent studies have revealed both synergistic and antagonistic effects of specific bacterial taxa on viral prevalence and infectivity. We set out to test whether specific bacterial communities predict SARS-CoV-2 occurrence in a hospital setting. METHODS: We collected 972 samples from hospitalized patients with COVID-19, their health care providers, and hospital surfaces before, during, and after admission. We screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-qPCR, characterized microbial communities using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and used these bacterial profiles to classify SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection with a random forest model. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of surfaces from COVID-19 patient rooms had detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA, although infectivity was not assessed. The highest prevalence was in floor samples next to patient beds (39%) and directly outside their rooms (29%). Although bed rail samples more closely resembled the patient microbiome compared to floor samples, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected less often in bed rail samples (11%). SARS-CoV-2 positive samples had higher bacterial phylogenetic diversity in both human and surface samples and higher biomass in floor samples. 16S microbial community profiles enabled high classifier accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 status in not only nares, but also forehead, stool, and floor samples. Across these distinct microbial profiles, a single amplicon sequence variant from the genus Rothia strongly predicted SARS-CoV-2 presence across sample types, with greater prevalence in positive surface and human samples, even when compared to samples from patients in other intensive care units prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: These results contextualize the vast diversity of microbial niches where SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected and identify specific bacterial taxa that associate with the viral RNA prevalence both in the host and hospital environment. Video Abstract.