Search

Background Based on interim analyses and modeling data, lower doses of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) were investigated to determine optimal dose and expand availability of treatment. Methods This Phase 3 portion of the BLAZE-1 trial characterized the effect of bamlanivimab with etesevimab on overall patient clinical status and virologic outcomes in ambulatory patients ≥12 years old, with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and ≥1 risk factor for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (700/1400 mg) or placebo were infused intravenously within 3 days of patients' first positive COVID-19 test. Results In total, 769 patients were infused (median age [range]; 56.0 years [12, 93], 30.3% of patients ≥65 years of age and median duration of symptoms; 4 days). By day 29, 4/511 patients (0.8%) in the antibody treatment group had a COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death, as compared with 15/258 patients (5.8%) in the placebo group (Δ[95% confidence interval {CI}] = −5.0 [−8.0, −2.1], P  < .001). No deaths occurred in the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with 4 deaths (all COVID-19-related) in the placebo group. Patients receiving antibody treatment had a greater mean reduction in viral load from baseline to Day 7 (Δ[95% CI] = −0.99 [−1.33, −.66], P  < .0001) compared with those receiving placebo. Persistently high viral load at Day 7 correlated with COVID-19-related hospitalization or any-cause death by Day 29 in all BLAZE-1 cohorts investigated. Conclusions These data support the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab (700/1400 mg) for ambulatory patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants will require continued monitoring to determine the applicability of this treatment. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04427501. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graduates of emergency medicine residency programs can seek certification from the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM), yet the costs and perceived value by residents is not clear. This report sought to better define the value of board certification by asking physicians taking the ABEM Oral Certification Examination (OCE) to describe its costs (eg, time, money) and perceived benefits. A descriptive, cross-sectional, voluntary, anonymous survey was administered to physicians taking the 2018 spring and fall ABEM OCEs. Response frequencies were used to report response rates. There were 2016 physicians who participated in the 2018 OCEs, of whom 1565 (78%) completed a survey. With respect to preparation, 38% (599 of 1565 responses) spent more than 30 hours preparing for the examination. Regarding the expense of preparing for the examination, 21% (328) spent nothing, 50% (776) spent less than $1,000, and 2% (38) spent more than $3,000. Most physicians (80%, 1254) reported a learning benefit to preparing for and taking the OCE. There were 49% (765) of respondents who reported that preparing for the examination reinforced their knowledge of emergency medicine; 20% (311) reported no learning benefit. Most physicians (92%, 1442) reported that ABEM certification provided a career benefit, the most common of which was more career opportunities (69%, 1076). Initial certification requires a considerable investment of time and money. Physicians seeking initial ABEM certification found both learning and professional benefits, with the most frequently reported being reinforcement of medical knowledge and more career opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective As part of the American Board of Emergency Medicine ( ABEM) Maintenance of Certification ( MOC) program, ABEM-certified physicians are required to pass the Continuous Certification (ConCert) examination at least every 10 years. With the 2015 ConCert examination, ABEM sought to better understand emergency physicians' perceptions of the benefits of preparing for and taking the examination and the career benefits of staying ABEM-certified. Methods This was a prospective survey study. A voluntary postexamination survey was administered at the end of the 2015 ABEM ConCert examination (September 21-26, 2015). Physicians were asked about the benefits of preparing for the examination and maintaining ABEM certification. Examination performance was compared to perceptions of learning and career benefits. Results Of the 2,601 on-time test takers, 2,511 respondents participated (96.5% participation rate). The majority of participants (92.0%) identified a benefit to preparing for the ConCert examination, which included reinforced medical knowledge (73.9%), increased knowledge (66.8%), and making them a better clinician (39.4%). The majority of respondents (90.8%) identified a career benefit of maintaining ABEM certification, which included more employment options (73.8%), more positively viewed by other physicians (56.8%), and better financial outcomes (29.8%). There was a statistically significant association between the perception of knowledge reinforcement and examination performance (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant association between the perception that staying certified created more career opportunities and examination performance (p < 0.001). Conclusions Most emergency physicians identified benefits of preparing for and taking the ABEM ConCert examination, which included reinforcing or adding medical knowledge and making them better clinicians. Most physicians also found career benefits to remaining ABEM-certified, which included greater employment choices, higher financial compensation, and higher esteem from other physicians. The belief that preparing for and taking the examination reinforced medical knowledge was associated with better examination performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A single 1200-mg dose of oritavancin was noninferior to 7–10 days of vancomycin for treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) caused by gram-positive pathogens. Oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to multi-dose therapies for ABSSSI.Background. Oritavancin is a lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with rapid bactericidal activity against gram-positive bacteria. Its concentration-dependent activity and long half-life allow for single-dose treatment.Methods. In a randomized, double-blind trial, adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) received either a single intravenous 1200-mg dose of oritavancin or 7–10 days of twice-daily vancomycin. Three efficacy endpoints were tested for noninferiority: (1) primary composite endpoint at 48–72 hours (cessation of spreading or reduction in lesion size, absence of fever, and no rescue antibiotic); (2) investigator-assessed clinical cure 7–14 days after end of treatment; and (3) ≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48–72 hours.Results. A total of 503 and 502 patients comprised the modified intent-to-treat population for oritavancin and vancomycin, respectively. All 3 efficacy endpoints met the 10% noninferiority margin: the primary composite endpoint (80.1% vs 82.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −7.5 to 2.0), investigator-assessed clinical cure (82.7% vs 80.5%; 95% CI, −2.6 to 7.0), and proportion of patients attaining ≥20% reduction in lesion area (85.9% vs 85.3%; 95% CI, −3.7 to 5.0) for oritavancin vs vancomycin, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by pathogen, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the frequency of adverse events, were similar between treatment groups.Conclusions. A single 1200-mg dose of oritavancin was noninferior to 7–10 days of vancomycin in treating ABSSSIs caused by gram-positive pathogens, and was well tolerated. Oritavancin provides a single-dose alternative to multidose therapies for the treatment of ABSSSIs.Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01252732. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study, the authors will investigate five methods for predicting the failure rate of a modified, upgraded version of a switching power converter. Considerable data were available on the operational reliability of the original version of this power converter and three others of a similar design. We will predict not a single, point estimate of the failure rate through each method, but rather obtain a probability density distribution in each case. The associated cumulative density function would then show the probability that the power converter's failure rate exceeded any particular, chosen value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life- threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. METHODS In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. RESULTS At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was -3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY- CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was -0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.08; P=0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (-0.20; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.25; P=0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.55; P=0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]