Search

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, no studies have evaluated adverse events and effectiveness of mAbs in pregnant persons compared with no mAb treatment.To determine the frequency of drug-related adverse events and obstetric-associated safety outcomes after treatment with mAb compared with no mAb treatment of pregnant persons, and the association between mAb treatment and a composite of 28-day COVID-19-related hospital admission or emergency department (ED) visit, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality.Retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study.UPMC Health System from 30 April 2021 to 21 January 2022.Persons aged 12 years or older with a pregnancy episode and any documented positive SARS-CoV-2 test (polymerase chain reaction or antigen test).Bamlanivimab and etesevimab, casirivimab and imdevimab, or sotrovimab treatment compared with no mAb treatment.Drug-related adverse events, obstetric-associated safety outcomes among persons who delivered, and a risk-adjusted composite of 28-day COVID-19-related hospital admission or ED visit, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality.Among 944 pregnant persons (median age [interquartile range (IQR)], 30 years [26 to 33 years]; White (79.5%;Drug-related adverse events were patient and provider reported and potentially underrepresented. Symptom severity at the time of SARS-CoV-2 testing was not available for nontreated patients.In pregnant persons with mild to moderate COVID-19, adverse events after mAb treatment were mild and rare. There was no difference in obstetric-associated safety outcomes between mAb treatment and no treatment among persons who delivered. There was no difference in 28-day COVID-19-associated outcomes and non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions for mAb treatment compared with no mAb treatment in a propensity score-matched cohort.No funding was received for this study.

Rapid source control is recommended to improve patient outcomes in sepsis. Yet there are few data to guide how rapidly source control is required.To determine the association between time to source control and patient outcomes in community-acquired sepsis.Multihospital integrated health care system cohort study of hospitalized adults (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017) with community-acquired sepsis as defined by Sepsis-3 who underwent source control procedures. Follow-up continued through January 1, 2019, and data analyses were completed March 17, 2022.Early (6 hours) compared with late (6-36 hours) source control as well as each hour of source control delay (1-36 hours) from sepsis onset.Multivariable models were clustered at the level of hospital with adjustment for patient factors, sepsis severity, resource availability, and the physiologic stress of procedures generating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CI.Of 4962 patients with sepsis (mean [SD] age, 62 [16] years; 52% male; 85% White; mean [SD] Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 3.8 [2.5]), source control occurred at a median (IQR) of 15.4 hours (5.5-21.7) after sepsis onset, with 1315 patients (27%) undergoing source control within 6 hours. The crude 90-day mortality was similar for early and late source control (n = 177 [14%] vs n = 529 [15%]; P = .35). In multivariable models, early source control was associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of 90-day mortality (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80). This association was greater among gastrointestinal and abdominal (aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80) and soft tissue interventions (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) compared with orthopedic and cranial interventions (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.96-1.83; P .001 for interaction).Source control within 6 hours of community-acquired sepsis onset was associated with a reduced risk-adjusted odds of 90-day mortality. Prioritizing the rapid identification of septic foci and initiation of source control interventions can reduce the number of avoidable deaths among patients with sepsis.

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.

IMPORTANCEMonoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, no studies have evaluated adverse events and effectiveness of mAbs in pregnant persons compared to no mAb treatment.OBJECTIVETo determine the frequency of drug-related adverse events and obstetric-associated safety outcomes after treatment with mAb compared to no mAb treatment, and the association between mAb treatment and a composite of 28-day COVID-19-related hospital admission or emergency department visit, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality.DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTSPropensity-score matched cohort study of persons aged 12 years of age or older with a pregnancy episode and any documented positive SARS-CoV-2 test (polymerase chain reaction or antigen test) in the UPMC health system from April 30, 2021 to January 21, 2022.EXPOSURESBamalanivmab and etesevimab, casirivimab and imdevimab, or sotrovimab treatment compared to no mAb treatment.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESDrug-related adverse events, obstetric-associated safety outcomes among persons who delivered, and a risk-adjusted composite of 28-day COVID-19-related hospital admission or ED visit, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality.RESULTSAmong 944 pregnant persons (median [IQR] age 30 [26, 33] years, White (79.5%, N=750), median [IQR] Charlson Comorbidity Index Score 0 (0,0)), 552 persons received mAb treatment (58%). Median gestational age at COVID-19 diagnosis or treatment was 179 days (IQR: 123, 227), and most persons received sotrovimab (69%, N=382). Of those with known vaccination status, 178 (62%) were fully vaccinated. Drug-related adverse events were uncommon (N=8, 1.4%), and there were no differences in any obstetric-associated outcome among 276 persons who delivered. After propensity score matching, the frequency of the composite 28-day COVID-19-associated outcome was 4.0 per 100 persons (95% CI 1.9, 6.2) in mAb-treated compared to 3.7 per 100 persons (95% CI 1.7, 5.8) in non-treated controls (risk difference = 0.31 per 100 persons [95% CI -2.6, 3.3). There were no deaths among mAb-treated patients compared to 1 death in the non-treated controls (p = 0.24). There were more non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions in the mAb-treated persons (risk difference 2.8 per 100 persons (95% CI 1.1, 4.5)).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn pregnant persons with mild to moderate COVID-19, adverse events after mAb treatment were mild and rare. There was no difference in obstetric-associated safety outcomes between mAb treatment and no treatment among persons who delivered. MAb treatment was associated with similar 28-day COVID-19-associated outcomes and more non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions compared to no mAb treatment.Key PointsQUESTIONAmong pregnant persons with COVID-19, is monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment associated with drug-related adverse events, similar frequency of obstetric-associated safety outcomes, and improved COVID-19-related clinical outcomes compared to no mAb treatment?FINDINGSIn 944 pregnant persons with COVID-19, drug-related adverse events were mild and infrequent. Obstetric-associated safety outcomes were similar between mAb treatment and no treatment. There was no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19-related hospital admission, COVID-19-associated delivery, or mortality between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment.MEANINGIn pregnant persons with mild to moderate COVID-19, adverse events after mAb treatment were uncommon, and there was no difference in obstetric-associated safety outcomes between mAb treatment and no treatment. MAb treatment was associated with similar 28-day risk of a COVID-19-associated outcome and more non-COVID-19-related hospital admissions compared to no mAb treatment.

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but the association with patient outcomes is understudied.To evaluate whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization and death compared with nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients and whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment.This prospective cohort study evaluated high-risk outpatients in a learning health system in the US with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021, who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also studied.Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of 600 mg of casirivimab and 600 mg of imdevimab.The primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios and differences in hospitalization, death, a composite end point of emergency department admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Among 1959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, 969 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [16.7] years; 547 women [56.4%]) who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (22 of 653 patients) compared with 7.0% (92 of 1306 patients) in nontreated controls (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .002). Among 2185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n = 969) or intravenous (n = 1216; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [16.6] years; 672 women [54.4%]) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 2.8% vs 1.7%, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -0.6% to 3.5%; P = .16). Among all infusion patients, there was no difference in intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 5.0%) or need for mechanical ventilation (adjusted risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 5.5%).In this cohort study of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms, subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab was associated with reduced hospitalization and death when compared with no treatment. These results provide preliminary evidence of potential expanded use of subcutaneous mAb treatment, particularly in areas that are facing treatment capacity and/or staffing shortages.

Both research and practice in critical care medicine have long been defined by syndromes. Though clinically recognizable entities, these are in fact loose amalgams of heterogeneous states, within which responses to therapy may vary. Mounting translational evidence suggests the current syndrome-based framework of critical illness should be reconsidered. Moreover, research done during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates how the study of a more biologically homogeneous condition – respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection – can increase the efficiency with which actionable results are generated. We discuss recent findings from basic science and clinical research in critical care, and explore how these might inform a new conceptual model of critical illness. De-emphasizing syndromes, we focus instead on the underlying biological changes that underpin critical illness states, and that may be amenable to treatment. We hypothesize that such an approach will accelerate translational critical care research, leading to a richer understanding of the pathobiology of critical illness, and of the proximate determinants of ICU outcomes. The specificity and granularity gained will support the design of more effective clinical trials, and inform a more precise, effective practice at the bedside.

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising pre-clinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data", causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, pre-clinical disease modeling, and understanding recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state, research priorities, and future directions for adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including: (1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment-response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; (2) optimizing pre-clinical models by incorporating comorbidities, co-interventions, and organ support; (3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and (4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery in order to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab.A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab.Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb.This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

IMPORTANCEThe effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab, for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 from the Delta variant is unknown.OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effectiveness of mAbs for the Delta variant compared to no treatment, and the comparative effectiveness between mAbs.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSTwo parallel studies among patients who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria for mAbs from July 14, 2021 to September 29, 2021: i.) prospective observational cohort study comparing mAb treatment to no mAb treatment and, ii.) Bayesian adaptive randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab versus sotrovimab. In the observational study, we compared eligible patients who received mAb at an outpatient infusion center at UPMC, to nontreated patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the comparative effectiveness trial, we randomly allocated casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab to patients presenting to infusion centers and emergency departments, per system therapeutic interchange policy.EXPOSUREIntravenous mAb per their EUA criteria.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFor the observational study, risk ratio estimates for hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment to no mAb treatment using propensity matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day) in a Bayesian cumulative logistic model, adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio RESULTSAmong 3,558 patients receiving mAb, the mean age was 54 (SD 18 years), 1,511 (43%) were treated in an infusion center, and 450 (13%) were hospitalized or died by day 28. In propensity matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR)=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28–0.57). Both casirivimab and imdevimab (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20–0.50), and sotrovimab (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.37–1.00) reduced hospitalization or death compared to no mAb treatment. Among patients allocated randomly to casirivimab and imdevimab (n=2,454) or sotrovimab (n=1,104), the median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28–28) for both groups, 28-day mortality was 0.5% (n=12) and 0.6% (n=7), and hospitalization by day 28 was 12% (n=291) and 12% (n=140), respectively. Compared to casirivimab and imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70–1.11) for sotrovimab. This odds ratio yielded 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were both associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04790786Key PointsQuestionIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, what is the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) compared to no treatment, and what is the comparative effectiveness between mAb?FindingsAmong 3,069 patients, mAb treatment (casirivimab and imdevimab or sotrovimab) was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death by 28 days compared to no treatment (risk ratio=0.40, 95% CI: 0.28–0.57). In a Bayesian randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab and imdevimab vs. sotrovimab in 3,558 patients, the median hospital–free days were 28 days for both groups. Compared to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratio for hospital-free days was 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70–1.11) for sotrovimab, an 86% probability of inferiority of sotrovimab versus casirivimab and imdevimab, and 79% probability of equivalence.MeaningIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, casirivimab and imdevimab and sotrovimab were associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death compared to no treatment. The comparative effectiveness of mAbs appeared similar, though prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met.

ImportanceMonoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but association with patient outcomes is understudied.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether or not, i.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization/death than non-treatment among mAb-eligible patients, and ii.) subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective cohort study of outpatients in a learning health system in the United States with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021 who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also selected.InterventionSubcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of casirivimab 600mg and imdevimab 600mg.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios/differences of hospitalization, death, composite endpoint of ED admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events.ResultsAmong 1,956 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, patients who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization/death of 3.4% (n=652) compared to 7.8% (n=1,304) in nontreated controls [risk ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.68, p < .001)]. Among 2,185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n=969) or intravenous (n=1,216) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization/death was 2.8% vs. 1.7%, respectively which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: -0.5% to 3.5%, p=.14). The 28-day adjusted risk differences (subcutaneous – intravenous) for death, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were 0.3% or less, although the 95% confidence intervals were wide.Conclusions and RelevanceSubcutaneously administered casirivimab-imdevimab is associated with reduced risk-adjusted hospitalization or death amongst outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 compared to no treatment and indicates low adjusted risk difference compared to patients treated intravenously.Key PointsQuestionAmong outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, is subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab associated with improved risk-adjusted 28-day clinical outcomes compared to non-treatment with monoclonal antibodies, and clinically similar association compared to intravenously administered casirivimab and imdevimab?FindingsAmong 1,956 propensity-matched adults, outpatients who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (n=652) compared to 7.8% (n=1,304) in non-treated controls [risk ratio 0.44 (95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.68, p < .001)]. Among 2,185 outpatients who received subcutaneous (n=969) or intravenous (n=1,216) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization/death was 2.8% vs. 1.7%, respectively, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval: -0.5% to 3.5%, p=.14). The 28-day adjusted risk differences comparing subcutaneous to intravenous route for death, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were 0.3% or less, although the 95% confidence intervals were wide.MeaningSubcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab is associated with reduced hospitalization or death amongst outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 compared to no treatment, and has a small, adjusted risk difference compared to patients treated intravenously.

The development of a shared data infrastructure across health systems could improve research, clinical care, and health policy across a spectrum of diseases, including sepsis. Awareness of the potential value of such infrastructure has been heightened by COVID-19, as the lack of a real-time, interoperable data network impaired disease identification, mitigation, and eradication. The Sepsis on FHIR collaboration establishes a dynamic, federated, and interoperable system of sepsis data from 55 hospitals using 2 distinct inpatient electronic health record systems. Here we report on phase 1, a systematic review to identify clinical variables required to define sepsis and its subtypes to produce a concept mapping of elements onto Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR). Relevant papers described consensus sepsis definitions, provided criteria for sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or detailed sepsis subtypes. Studies not written in English, published prior to 1970, or "grey" literature were prospectively excluded. We analyzed 55 manuscripts yielding 151 unique clinical variables. We then mapped variables to their corresponding US Core FHIR resources and specific code values. This work establishes the framework to develop a flexible infrastructure for sharing sepsis data, highlighting how FHIR could enable the extension of this approach to other important conditions relevant to public health.

BackgroundNeutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19. Yet, their clinical use is limited, and comparative effectiveness is unknown.MethodsWe present the first results of an ongoing, learning health system adaptive platform trial to expand mAb treatment to all eligible patients and evaluate the comparative effectiveness of available mAbs. The trial launched March 10, 2021. Results are reported as of June 25, 2021 due to the U.S. federal decision to pause distribution of bamlanivimab-etesevimab; patient follow-up concluded on July 23, 2021. Patients referred for mAb who met Emergency Use Authorization criteria were provided a random mAb allocation of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, or casirivimab-imdevimab with a therapeutic interchange policy. The primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospital) within 28 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model of all patients treated at an infusion center or emergency department, adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the odds ratio is within a given bound.ResultsPrior to trial launch, 3.1% (502) of 16,345 patients who were potentially eligible by an automated electronic health record (EHR) screen received mAb. During the trial period, 23.2% (1,201) of 5,173 EHR-screen eligible patients were treated, a 7.5-fold increase. After including additional referred patients from outside the health system, a total of 1,935 study patients received mAb therapy (128 bamlanivimab, 885 bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 922 casirivimab-imdevimab). Mean age ranged from 55 to 57 years, half were female (range, 53% to 54%), and 17% were Black (range, 12% to 19%). Median hospital–free days were 28 (IQR, 28 to 28) for each mAb group. Hospitalization varied between groups (bamlanivimab, 12.5%; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, 14.7%, casirivimab-imdevimab, 14.3%). Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab, the median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval (CI), 0.30 to 1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.24) for the bamlanivimab and bamlanivimab-etesevimab groups, respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab respectively, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, at the prespecified odds ratio bound of 0.25. Twenty-one infusion-related adverse events occurred in 0% (0/128), 1.4% (12/885), and 1.0% (9/922) of patients treated with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively.ConclusionIn non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, bamlanivimab, compared to bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, resulted in 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority with regards to odds of improvement in hospital-free days within 28 days. There was an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab at an odds ratio bound of 0.25. However, the trial was unblinded early due to federal distribution decisions, and no mAb met prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786).

ImportanceIntravenous fluid administration is recommended to improve outcomes for patients with septic shock. However, there are few data on fluid administration for patients with preexisting heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between preexisting HFrEF, guideline-recommended intravenous fluid resuscitation, and mortality among patients with community-acquired sepsis and septic shock.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA cohort study was conducted of adult patients hospitalized in an integrated health care system from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015, with community-acquired sepsis and preexisting assessment of cardiac function. Follow-up occurred through July 1, 2016. Data analyses were performed from November 1, 2020, to August 8, 2022.ExposuresPreexisting heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%) measured by transthoracic echocardiogram within 1 year prior to hospitalization for sepsis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMultivariable models were adjusted for patient factors and sepsis severity and clustered at the hospital level to generate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs. The primary outcome was the administration of 30 mL/kg of intravenous fluid within 6 hours of sepsis onset. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission, rate of invasive mechanical ventilation, and administration of vasoactive medications.ResultsOf 5278 patients with sepsis (2673 men [51%]; median age, 70 years [IQR, 60-81 years]; 4349 White patients [82%]; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 [IQR, 3-5]), 884 (17%) had preexisting HFrEF, and 2291 (43%) met criteria for septic shock. Patients with septic shock and HFrEF were less likely to receive guideline-recommended intravenous fluid than those with septic shock without HFrEF (96 of 380 [25%] vs 699 of 1911 [37%]; P P = .83). In multivariable models, HFrEF was associated with a decreased risk-adjusted odds of receiving 30 mL/kg of intravenous fluid within the first 6 hours of sepsis onset (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002). The risk-adjusted mortality was not significantly different among patients with HFrEF (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.69-1.24; P = .59) compared with those without, and there was no interaction with intravenous fluid volume (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; P = .72).Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cohort study of patients with community-acquired septic shock suggest that preexisting HFrEF was common and was associated with reduced odds of receiving guideline-recommended intravenous fluids.

Background Clinical and biologic phenotypes of sepsis are proposed in human studies, yet it is unknown whether prognostic or drug response phenotypes are present in animal models of sepsis. Using a biotelemetry-enhanced, murine cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) model, we determined phenotypes of polymicrobial sepsis prior to physiologic deterioration, and the association between phenotypes and outcome in a randomized trial of prompt or delayed antibiotics and fluids. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of male C57BL/6J mice in two observational cohorts and two randomized, laboratory animal experimental trials. In cohort 1, mice (n = 118) underwent biotelemetry-enhanced CLP, and we applied latent class mixed models to determine optimal number of phenotypes using clinical data collected between injury and physiologic deterioration. In cohort 2 (N = 73 mice), inflammatory cytokines measured at 24 h after deterioration were explored by phenotype. In a subset of 46 mice enrolled in two trials from cohort 1, we tested the association of phenotypes with the response to immediate (0 h) vs. delayed (2 to 4 h) antibiotics or fluids initiated after physiologic deterioration. Results Latent class mixture modeling derived a two-class model in cohort 1. Class 2 (N = 97) demonstrated a shorter time to deterioration (mean SD 7.3 (0.9) vs. 9.7 (3.2) h, p p p = 0.75). In cohort 2 used for biomarker measurement, class 2 mice had greater plasma concentrations of IL6 and IL10 at 24 h after CLP (p = 0.05). In pilot randomized trials, the effects of sepsis treatment (immediate vs. delayed antibiotics) differed by phenotype (p = 0.03), with immediate treatment associated with greater survival in class 2 mice only. Similar differential treatment effect by class was observed in the trial of immediate vs. delayed fluids (p = 0.02). Conclusions We identified two sepsis phenotypes in a murine cecal ligation and puncture model, one of which is characterized by faster deterioration and more severe inflammation. Response to treatment in a randomized trial of immediate versus delayed antibiotics and fluids differed on the basis of phenotype.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Most septic patients are initially encountered in the emergency department where sepsis recognition is often delayed, in part due to the lack of effective biomarkers. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of peripheral blood monocyte distribution width alone and in combination with WBC count for early sepsis detection in the emergency department. Design: An Institutional Review Board approved, blinded, observational, prospective cohort study conducted between April 2017 and January 2018. Setting: Subjects were enrolled from emergency departments at three U.S. academic centers. Patients: Adult patients, 18–89 years, with complete blood count performed upon presentation to the emergency department, and who remained hospitalized for at least 12 hours. A total of 2,212 patients were screened, of whom 2,158 subjects were enrolled and categorized per Sepsis-2 criteria, such as controls (n = 1,088), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (n = 441), infection (n = 244), and sepsis (n = 385), and Sepsis-3 criteria, such as control (n = 1,529), infection (n = 386), and sepsis (n = 243). Interventions: The primary outcome determined whether an monocyte distribution width of greater than 20.0 U, alone or in combination with WBC, improves early sepsis detection by Sepsis-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints determined monocyte distribution width performance for Sepsis-3 detection. Measurements and Main Results: Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U distinguished sepsis from all other conditions based on either Sepsis-2 criteria (area under the curve, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76–0.82) or Sepsis-3 criteria (area under the curve, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69–0.76). The negative predictive values for monocyte distribution width less than or equal to 20 U for Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 were 93% and 94%, respectively. Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U combined with an abnormal WBC further improved Sepsis-2 detection (area under the curve, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83–0.88) and as reflected by likelihood ratio and added value analyses. Normal WBC and monocyte distribution width inferred a six-fold lower sepsis probability. Conclusions: An monocyte distribution width value of greater than 20.0 U is effective for sepsis detection, based on either Sepsis-2 criteria or Sepsis-3 criteria, during the initial emergency department encounter. In tandem with WBC, monocyte distribution width is further predicted to enhance medical decision making during early sepsis management in the emergency department.

Background: To evaluate a new strategy for identifying sepsis in Emergency Department (ED) patients that combines administrative diagnosis codes with clinical information from the point of first contact. Methods: This study linked clinical data from adult patients transported by a provincial Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system to ED and inpatient administrative databases. Sepsis cases were identified by searching ED databases for diagnosis codes consistent with infection and organ dysfunction. Organ dysfunction was further assessed using a partial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score derived from EMS clinical information. Reliability was evaluated by comparing patients’ ED diagnosis codes (ICD-10CA) to their inpatient diagnosis codes; criterion validity by comparing cases classified by the new strategy to an existing inpatient administrative algorithm; and construct validity by assessing for clinical characteristics typically associated with sepsis (e.g., mortality). Results: A total of 43,297 patients were included. ED infection codes were more reliable for classifying patients with infection than using ED sepsis codes alone (proportion of agreement with inpatient codes 79% vs. 74%; p-value < 0.001). The novel strategy requiring the presence of an infection code and either an organ dysfunction code or 2 or more SOFA points from EMS clinical information identified 1,379 more ED patients as having sepsis than the inpatient algorithm. These patients had high mortality supporting construct validity. Conclusions: Incorporation of a broader range of diagnostic codes and linking to an electronic database to obtain initial clinical information for the assessment of organ dysfunction improves reliability, criterion, and construct validity for identifying sepsis in ED patients.

The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab, is unknown in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.To evaluate the effectiveness of mAb against the Delta variant compared with no mAb treatment and to ascertain the comparative effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab.This study comprised 2 parallel studies: (1) a propensity score-matched cohort study of mAb treatment vs no mAb treatment and (2) a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab. The cohort consisted of patients who received mAb treatment at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center outpatient infusion centers and emergency departments from July 14 to September 29, 2021. Participants were patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result who were eligible to receive mAbs according to emergency use authorization criteria.For the trial, patients were randomized to either intravenous casirivimab-imdevimab or sotrovimab according to a system therapeutic interchange policy.For the cohort study, risk ratio (RR) estimates for the primary outcome of hospitalization or death by 28 days were compared between mAb treatment and no mAb treatment using propensity score-matched models. For the comparative effectiveness trial, the primary outcome was hospital-free days (days alive and free of hospitalization) within 28 days after mAb treatment, where patients who died were assigned -1 day in a bayesian cumulative logistic model adjusted for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as a 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) less than 1. Equivalence was defined as a 95% posterior probability that the OR was within a given bound.A total of 3069 patients (1023 received mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 53.2 [16.4] years; 569 women [56%]; 2046 had no mAb treatment: mean [SD] age, 52.8 [19.5] years; 1157 women [57%]) were included in the prospective cohort study, and 3558 patients (mean [SD] age, 54 [18] years; 1919 women [54%]) were included in the randomized comparative effectiveness trial. In propensity score-matched models, mAb treatment was associated with reduced risk of hospitalization or death (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.57) compared with no treatment. Both casirivimab-imdevimab (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.50) and sotrovimab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-1.00) were associated with reduced hospitalization or death compared with no mAb treatment. In the clinical trial, 2454 patients were randomized to receive casirivimab-imdevimab and 1104 patients were randomized to receive sotrovimab. The median (IQR) hospital-free days were 28 (28-28) for both mAb treatments, the 28-day mortality rate was less than 1% (n = 12) for casirivimab-imdevimab and less than 1% (n = 7) for sotrovimab, and the hospitalization rate by day 28 was 12% (n = 291) for casirivimab-imdevimab and 13% (n = 140) for sotrovimab. Compared with patients who received casirivimab-imdevimab, those who received sotrovimab had a median adjusted OR for hospital-free days of 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.70-1.11). This OR yielded 86% probability of inferiority for sotrovimab vs casirivimab-imdevimab and 79% probability of equivalence.In this propensity score-matched cohort study and randomized comparative effectiveness trial, the effectiveness of casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab against the Delta variant was similar, although the prespecified criteria for statistical inferiority or equivalence were not met. Both mAb treatments were associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or death in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786.

OBJECTIVES Among patients with suspected infection, a single measurement of the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment has good predictive validity for sepsis, yet the increase in validity from repeated measurements is unknown. We sought to determine the incremental predictive validity for sepsis of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment measurements over 48 hours compared with the initial measurement. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Twelve hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania in 2012. PATIENTS All adult medical and surgical encounters in the emergency department, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit, and ICU. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Among 1.3 million adult encounters, we identified those with a first episode of suspected infection. Using the maximum quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score in each 6-hour epoch from onset of suspected infection until 48 hours later, we characterized repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment with: 1) summary measures (e.g., mean over 48 hr), 2) crude trajectory groups, and 3) group-based trajectory modeling. We measured the predictive validity of repeated quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment using incremental changes in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for in-hospital mortality beyond that of baseline risk (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity). Of 37,591 encounters with suspected infection, 1,769 (4.7%) died before discharge. Both the mean quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at 48 hours (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.85-0.86]) and crude trajectory groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.83-0.83]) improved predictive validity compared with initial quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80]) (p < 0.001 for both). Group-based trajectory modeling found five trajectories (quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment always low, increasing, decreasing, moderate, and always high) with greater predictive validity than the initial measurement (area under the receiver operating characteristic, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.85]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Repeated measurements of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality compared with a single measurement of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment at the time a clinician suspects infection.

Rationale: In 2013, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) began a mandatory state-wide initiative to improve early recognition and treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. Objectives: This study examines protocol initiation, 3-hour and 6-hour sepsis bundle completion, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality among adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Methods: Cohort analysis included all patients from all 185 hospitals in New York State reported to the NYSDOH from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. A total of 113,380 cases were submitted to NYSDOH, of which 91,357 hospitalizations from 183 hospitals met study inclusion criteria. NYSDOH required all hospitals to submit and follow evidence-informed protocols (including elements of 3-h and 6-h sepsis bundles: lactate measurement, early blood cultures and antibiotic administration, fluids, and vasopressors) for early identification and treatment of severe sepsis or septic shock. Measurements and Main Results: Compliance with elements of the sepsis bundles and risk-adjusted mortality were studied. Of 91,357 patients, 74,293 (81.3%) had the sepsis protocol initiated. Among these individuals, 3-hour bundle compliance increased from 53.4% to 64.7% during the study period (P

Objectives The primary objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 specific monoclonal antibodies (mABs) with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), alongside UPMC Health System efforts to increase patient access to these mABs. Trial design Open-label, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness platform trial with response-adaptive randomization Participants We will evaluate patients who meet the eligibility criteria stipulated by the COVID-19 mAB EUAs who receive mABs within the UPMC Health System, including infusion centers and emergency departments. EUA eligibility criteria include patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, <10 days of symptoms, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization (elderly, obese, and/or with specific comorbidities). The EUA criteria exclude patients who require oxygen for the treatment of COVID-19 and patients already hospitalized for the treatment of COVID-19. We will use data collected for routine clinical care, including data entered into the electronic medical record and from follow-up calls. Intervention and comparator The interventions are the COVID-19 specific mABs authorized by the EUAs. All aspects of mAB treatment, including eligibility criteria, dosing, and post-infusion monitoring, are as per the EUAs. As a comparative effectiveness trial, all patients receive mAB treatment, and the interventions are compared against each other. When U.S. government mAB policies change (e.g., FDA grants or revokes EUAs), UPMC Health System policies and the evaluated mAB interventions will accordingly change. From November 2020 to February 2021, FDA issued EUAs for three mAB treatments (bamlanivimab; bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab), and at trial launch on March 10, 2021 we evaluated all three. Due to a sustained increase in SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States resistant to bamlanivimab administered alone, on March 24, 2021 the U.S. Government halted distribution of bamlanivimab alone, and UPMC accordingly halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. On April 16, 2021, FDA revoked the EUA for bamlanivimab monotherapy. At the time of manuscript submission, we are therefore evaluating the two mAB treatments authorized by EUAs (bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and casirivimab and imdevimab). Main outcomes The primary outcome is total hospital free days (HFD) at 28 days after mAB administration, calculated as 28 minus the number of days during the index stay (if applicable – e.g., for patients admitted to hospital after mAB administration in the emergency department) minus the number of days readmitted during the 28 days after treatment. This composite endpoint captures the number of days from the day of mAB administration to the 28 days thereafter, during which the patient is alive and free of hospitalization. Death within 28 days is recorded as -1 HFD, as the worst outcome. Randomisation We will start with equal allocation. Due to uncertainty in sample size, we will use a Bayesian adaptive design and response adaptive randomization to ensure ability to provide statistical inference despite variable sample size. When mABs are ordered by UPMC physicians as a generic referral order, the order is filled by UPMC pharmacy via therapeutic interchange. OPTIMISE-C19 provides the therapeutic interchange via random allocation. Infusion center operations teams and pharmacists use a mAB assignment application embedded in the electronic medical record to determine the random allocation. Blinding (masking) This trial is open-label. However, outcome assessors conducting follow-up calls at day 28 are blinded to mAB assignment, and investigators are blinded to by-mAB aggregate outcome data until a statistical platform trial conclusion is reached. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) Sample size will be determined by case volume throughout the course of the pandemic, supply of FDA authorized mABs, and by that needed to reach a platform trial conclusion of inferiority, superiority, or futility of a given mAB. The trial will continue as long as more than one mAB type is available under EUA, and their comparative effectiveness is uncertain. Trial Status Protocol Version 1.0, February 24, 2021. Recruitment began March 10, 2021 and is ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. The estimated recruitment end date is February 22, 2022, though the final end date is dependent on how the pandemic evolves, mAB availability, and when final platform trial conclusions are reached. As noted above, due to U.S. Government decisions, UPMC Health System halted bamlanivimab monotherapy on March 31, 2021. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790786. Registered March 10, 2021 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

BackgroundMonoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment may prevent complications of COVID-19. We sought to quantify the impact of bamlanivimab monotherapy on hospitalizations and mortality, as well as Emergency Department (ED) visits without hospitalization, among outpatients at high risk of COVID-19 complications.MethodsWe compared patients receiving mAb to patients who met criteria but did not receive mAb from December 2020 through March 2021. The study population selection used propensity scores to match 1:1 by likelihood to receive mAb. The primary outcome was hospitalization or all-cause mortality within 28 days; the secondary outcome was hospitalization or ED visit without hospitalization within 28 days. Odds ratios (OR) calculation used logistic regression modeling including propensity score and mAb receipt predictors.ResultsThe study population included 234 patients receiving mAb and 234 matched comparator patients not receiving mAb. Patients receiving mAb were less likely to experience hospitalization or mortality (OR 0.31, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.17-0.56, p=0.00001) and hospitalization or ED visit without hospitalization (OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.43-0.83, p=0.007). The impact of mAb was more pronounced in prevention of hospitalization (among all age groups, OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.19-0.66, p=0.001) than mortality or ED visit without hospitalization, and most strongly associated with patients age 65 years and older (primary outcome OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.14-0.56, p=0.0003).ConclusionsBamlanivimab monotherapy was associated with reduction in the composite outcome of hospitalizations and mortality in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. The benefit may be strongest in preventing hospitalization in patients ages 65 years or older.

IMPORTANCE: Sepsis is a common syndrome with substantial morbidity and mortality. A combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and corticosteroids has been proposed as a potential treatment for patients with sepsis. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone every 6 hours increases ventilator- and vasopressor-free days compared with placebo in patients with sepsis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, adaptive-sample-size, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adult patients with sepsis-induced respiratory and/or cardiovascular dysfunction. Participants were enrolled in the emergency departments or intensive care units at 43 hospitals in the United States between August 2018 and July 2019. After enrollment of 501 participants, funding was withheld, leading to an administrative termination of the trial. All study-related follow-up was completed by January 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) every 6 hours (n = 252) or matching placebo (n = 249) for 96 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death. Participants could be treated with open-label corticosteroids by the clinical team, with study hydrocortisone or matching placebo withheld if the total daily dose was greater or equal to the equivalent of 200 mg of hydrocortisone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of consecutive ventilator- and vasopressor-free days in the first 30 days following the day of randomization. The key secondary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 501 participants randomized (median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 50-70] years; 46% female; 30% Black; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, 27 [IQR, 20.8-33.0]; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 9 [IQR, 7-12]), all completed the trial. Open-label corticosteroids were prescribed to 33% and 32% of the intervention and control groups, respectively. Ventilator- and vasopressor-free days were a median of 25 days (IQR, 0-29 days) in the intervention group and 26 days (IQR, 0-28 days) in the placebo group, with a median difference of −1 day (95% CI, −4 to 2 days; P = .85). Thirty-day mortality was 22% in the intervention group and 24% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients with sepsis, treatment with vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly increase ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days. However, the trial was terminated early for administrative reasons and may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509350

Sepsis is a heterogeneous disease. Clustering sepsis patients into homogeneous subgroups with characteristic phenotypes may help for studying the disease progression and for providing targeted therapies. Existing clustering methods use many or all input variables whereas clusters defined by few variables are preferred by clinicians investigating subgroup treatment. To address this gap, we propose a soft F-statistic loss that promotes disentangled clusters differentiating on a small subset of features. Empirical and qualitative results demonstrate our method excels at achieving the desired property against competing methods.

Sepsis is defined as a dysregulated host response to infection that leads to life-threatening acute organ dysfunction. It afflicts approximately 50 million people worldwide annually and is often deadly, even when evidence-based guidelines are applied promptly. Many randomized trials tested therapies for sepsis over the past 2 decades, but most have not proven beneficial. This may be because sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterized by a vast set of clinical and biologic features. Combinations of these features, however, may identify previously unrecognized groups, or "subclasses" with different risks of outcome and response to a given treatment. As efforts to identify sepsis subclasses become more common, many unanswered questions and challenges arise. These include: 1) the semantic underpinning of sepsis subclasses, 2) the conceptual goal of subclasses, 3) considerations about study design, data sources, and statistical methods, 4) the role of emerging data types, and 5) how to determine whether subclasses represent "truth." We discuss these challenges and present a framework for the broader study of sepsis subclasses. This framework is intended to aid in the understanding and interpretation of sepsis subclasses, provide a mechanism for explaining subclasses generated by different methodologic approaches, and guide clinicians in how to consider subclasses in bedside care.

Immune dysfunction is an important factor driving mortality and adverse outcomes after trauma but remains poorly understood, especially at the cellular level. To deconvolute the trauma-induced immune response, we applied single-cell RNA sequencing to circulating and bone marrow mononuclear cells in injured mice and circulating mononuclear cells in trauma patients. In mice, the greatest changes in gene expression were seen in monocytes across both compartments. After systemic injury, the gene expression pattern of monocytes markedly deviated from steady state with corresponding changes in critical transcription factors, which can be traced back to myeloid progenitors. These changes were largely recapitulated in the human single-cell analysis. We generalized the major changes in human CD14+ monocytes into 6 signatures, which further defined 2 trauma patient subtypes (SG1 vs. SG2) identified in the whole-blood leukocyte transcriptome in the initial 12 hours after injury. Compared with SG2, SG1 patients exhibited delayed recovery, more severe organ dysfunction, and a higher incidence of infection and noninfectious complications. The 2 patient subtypes were also recapitulated in burn and sepsis patients, revealing a shared pattern of immune response across critical illness. Our data will be broadly useful to further explore the immune response to inflammatory diseases and critical illness.