Search

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

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomic and subgenomic RNA levels are frequently used as a correlate of infectiousness. The impact of host factors and SARS-CoV-2 lineage on RNA viral load is unclear. METHODS: Total nucleocapsid (N) and subgenomic N (sgN) RNA levels were measured by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in specimens from 3204 individuals hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 21 hospitals. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were used to estimate RNA viral load. The impact of time of sampling, SARS-CoV-2 variant, age, comorbidities, vaccination, and immune status on N and sgN Ct values were evaluated using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Mean Ct values at presentation for N were 24.14 (SD 4.53) for non-variants of concern, 25.15 (SD 4.33) for Alpha, 25.31 (SD 4.50) for Delta, and 26.26 (SD 4.42) for Omicron. N and sgN RNA levels varied with time since symptom onset and infecting variant but not with age, comorbidity, immune status, or vaccination. When normalized to total N RNA, sgN levels were similar across all variants. CONCLUSIONS: RNA viral loads were similar among hospitalized adults, irrespective of infecting variant and known risk factors for severe COVID-19. Total N and subgenomic RNA N viral loads were highly correlated, suggesting that subgenomic RNA measurements add little information for the purposes of estimating infectivity.

Introduction: Reducing non-urgent emergency department (ED) visits has been targeted as a method to produce cost savings. To better describe these visits, we sought to compare resource utilization of ED visits characterized as non-urgent at triage to immediate, emergent, or urgent (IEU) visits.Methods: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Urgency of visits was categorized using the assigned 5-level triage acuity score. We analyzed resource utilization, including diagnostic testing, treatment, and hospitalization within each acuity categorization.Results: From 2006-2009, 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.2-11.2) of United States ED visits were categorized as non-urgent. Most (87.8% [95%CI, 86.3-89.2]) non-urgent visits had some diagnostic testing or treatment in the ED. Imaging was common in non-urgent visits (29.8% [95%CI, 27.8-31.8]), although not as frequent as for IEU visits (52.9% [95%CI, 51.6-54.2]). Similarly, procedures were performed less frequently for non-urgent (34.1% [95%CI, 31.8-36.4]) compared to IEU visits (56.3% [95%CI, 53.5-59.0]). Medication administration was similar between the 2 groups (80.6% [95%CI, 79.5-81.7] vs. 76.3% [95% CI, 74.7-77.8], respectively). The rate of hospital admission was 4.0% (95%CI, 3.3-4.8) vs. 19.8% (95%CI, 18.4-21.3) for IEU visits, with admission to a critical care setting for 0.5% of non-urgent visits (95%CI, 0.3-0.6) vs. 3.4% (95%CI, 3.1-3.8) of IEU visits.Conclusions: For most non-urgent ED visits, some diagnostic or therapeutic intervention was performed. Relatively low, but notable proportions of non-urgent ED visits were admitted to the hospital, sometimes to a critical care setting. These data call into question non-urgent ED visits being categorized as “unnecessary,” particularly in the setting of limited access to timely primary care for acute illness or injury. [West J Emerg Med.609-616.]

Introduction: To describe the epidemiology and characteristics of emergency department (ED) visits by older adults for motor vehicle collisions (MVC) in the United States (U.S.).Methods: We analyzed ED visits for MVCs using data from the 2003–2007 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Using U.S. Census data, we calculated annual incidence rates of driver or passenger MVC-related ED visits and examined visit characteristics, including triage acuity, tests performed and hospital admission or discharge. We compared older (65+ years) and younger (18-64 years) MVC patients and calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to measure the strength of associations between age group and various visit characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of admissions for MVC-related injuries among older adults.Results: From 2003–2007, there were an average of 237,000 annual ED visits by older adults for MVCs. The annual ED visit rate for MVCs was 6.4 (95% CI 4.6-8.3) visits per 1,000 for older adults and 16.4 (95% CI 14.0-18.8) visits per 1,000 for younger adults. Compared to younger MVC patients, after adjustment for gender, race and ethnicity, older MVC patients were more likely to have at least one imaging study performed (OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.46-9.36). Older MVC patients were not significantly more likely to arrive by ambulance (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.76–2.86), have a high triage acuity (OR 1.56; 95% CI 0.77-3.14), or to have a diagnosis of a head, spinal cord or torso injury (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.42-2.23) as compared to younger MVC patients after adjustment for gender, race and ethnicity. Overall, 14.5% (95% CI 9.8-19.2) of older MVC patients and 6.1% (95% CI 4.8-7.5) of younger MVC patients were admitted to the hospital. There was also a non-statistically significant trend toward hospital admission for older versus younger MVC patients (OR 1.78; 95% CI 0.71-4.43), and admission to the ICU if hospitalized (OR 6.9, 95% CI 0.9-51.9), after adjustment for gender, race, ethnicity, and injury acuity. Markers of injury acuity studied included EMS arrival, high triage acuity category, ED imaging, and diagnosis of a head, spinal cord or internal injury.Conclusion: Although ED visits after MVC for older adults are less common per capita, older adults are more commonly admitted to the hospital and ICU. Older MVC victims require significant ED resources in terms of diagnostic imaging as compared to younger MVC patients. As the U.S. population ages, and as older adults continue to drive, emergency departments (EDs) will have to allocate appropriate resources and develop diagnostic and treatment protocols to care for the increased volume of older adult MVC victims. [West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(6):576–581.]

Objective: Use of bedside emergency department (ED) ultrasound has become increasingly important for the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM). We sought to evaluate differences in the availability of immediate bedside ultrasound based on basic ED characteristics and physician staffing.Methods: We surveyed ED directors in all 351 EDs in Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Oregon between January and April 2009. We assessed access to bedside ED ultrasound by the question: “Is bedside ultrasound available immediately in the ED?” ED characteristics included location, visit volume, admission rate, percent uninsured, total emergency physician full-time equivalents and proportion of EM board-certified (BC) or EM board-eligible (BE) physicians. Data analysis used chi-square tests and multivariable logistical regression to compare differences in access to bedside ED ultrasound by ED characteristics and staffing.Results: We received complete responses from 298 (85%) EDs. Immediate access to bedside ultrasound was available in 175 (59%) EDs. ED characteristics associated with access to bedside ultrasound were: location (39% for rural vs. 71% for urban, P20%] rates, P

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization.MethodsCase-control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states 11 March-15 December 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with 2 doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsBooster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE.ResultsA total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary.ConclusionsVaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.

BackgroundTest-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls.MethodsAdults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group.Results5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls.ConclusionsDespite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates.MethodsHospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation.ResultsOf 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only.ConclusionsApproximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

BackgroundLevels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2.DesignCross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge.Setting114 centers in 10 countries.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms.MeasurementsBaseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively.ResultsPlasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity.LimitationsPlasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available.ConclusionElevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.Primary funding sourceU.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P

BackgroundEnsovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone.DesignDouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SettingMultinational, multicenter trial.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionIntravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo.MeasurementsEnsovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90.ResultsAn independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization was evaluated among immunocompetent adults (≥18 years) during March-August 2021 using a case-control design. Among 1669 hospitalized COVID-19 cases (11% fully vaccinated) and 1950 RT-PCR-negative controls (54% fully vaccinated), VE was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-98%) among patients with no chronic medical conditions and 83% (95% CI, 76%-88%) among patients with ≥ 3 categories of conditions. VE was similar between those aged 18-64 years versus ≥65 years (P > .05). VE against severe COVID-19 was very high among adults without chronic conditions and lessened with increasing comorbidity burden.

BackgroundAs severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.MethodsIn a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11-May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.ResultsAmong 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7-91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3-9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8-82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6-94.8).ConclusionDuring March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

BackgroundWe aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.MethodsIn this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.FindingsBetween Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.InterpretationNeither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) provide protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are highly effective against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among eligible persons who receive 2 doses (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) among persons with immunocompromising conditions* is lower than that among immunocompetent persons (2), and VE declines after several months among all persons (3). On August 12, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third mRNA vaccine dose as part of a primary series ≥28 days after dose 2 for persons aged ≥12 years with immunocompromising conditions, and, on November 19, 2021, as a booster dose for all adults aged ≥18 years at least 6 months after dose 2, changed to ≥5 months after dose 2 on January 3, 2022 (4,5,6). Among 2,952 adults (including 1,385 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,567 COVID-19-negative controls) hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals during August 19-December 15, 2021, effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was compared between adults eligible for but who had not received a third vaccine dose (1,251) and vaccine-eligible adults who received a third dose ≥7 days before illness onset (312). Among 1,875 adults without immunocompromising conditions (including 1,065 [57%] unvaccinated, 679 [36%] 2-dose recipients, and 131 [7%] 3-dose [booster] recipients), VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was higher among those who received a booster dose (97%; 95% CI = 95%-99%) compared with that among 2-dose recipients (82%; 95% CI = 77%-86%) (p

ObjectivesTo characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant.DesignCase-control study.Setting21 hospitals across the United States.Participants11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022).Main outcome measuresVaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization's clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression.ResultsEffectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85).ConclusionsmRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) are effective at preventing COVID-19-associated hospitalization (1-3). However, how well mRNA vaccines protect against the most severe outcomes of these hospitalizations, including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death is uncertain. Using a case-control design, mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated IMV and in-hospital death was evaluated among adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized at 21 U.S. medical centers during March 11, 2021-January 24, 2022. During this period, the most commonly circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron). Previous vaccination (2 or 3 versus 0 vaccine doses before illness onset) in prospectively enrolled COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died within 28 days of hospitalization was compared with that among hospitalized control patients without COVID-19. Among 1,440 COVID-19 case-patients who received IMV or died, 307 (21%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses before illness onset. Among 6,104 control-patients, 4,020 (66%) had received 2 or 3 vaccine doses. Among the 1,440 case-patients who received IMV or died, those who were vaccinated were older (median age = 69 years), more likely to be immunocompromised* (40%), and had more chronic medical conditions compared with unvaccinated case-patients (median age = 55 years; immunocompromised = 10%; p

Introduction: The first proposed emergency care alternative payment model seeks to reduce avoidable admissions from the emergency department (ED), but this initiative may increase risk of adverse events after discharge. Our study objective was to describe variation in ED discharge rates and determine whether higher discharge rates were associated with more ED revisits.Methods:  Using all-payer inpatient and ED administrative data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) 2017 database, we performed a retrospective cohort study of hospital-level ED discharge rates and ED revisits using conditions that have been previously described as having variability in discharge rates: abdominal pain; altered mental status; chest pain; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation; skin and soft tissue infection; syncope; and urinary tract infection. We categorized hospitals into quartiles for each condition based on a covariate-adjusted discharge rate and compared the rate of ED revisits between hospitals in the highest and lowest quartiles.Results: We found a greater than 10% difference in the between-quartile median adjusted discharge rate for each condition except for abdominal pain. There was no significant association between adjusted discharge rates and ED revisits. Altered mental status had the highest revisit rate, at 34% for hospitals in the quartile with the lowest and 30% in hospitals with the highest adjusted discharge rate, although this was not statistically significant. Syncope had the lowest rate of revisits at 16% for hospitals in both the lowest and highest adjusted discharge rate quartiles.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that there may be opportunity to increase ED discharges for certain conditions without resulting in higher rates of ED revisits, which may be a surrogate for adverse events after discharge.

BackgroundBecause of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19.MethodsObservational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March-June and October-December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data.ResultsAmong 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n = 434); 90% October-December (n = 213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March-June and October-December.ConclusionsMost adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the continued urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes.

Real-world evaluations have demonstrated high effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations (1-4) measured shortly after vaccination; longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of protection. In an evaluation at 21 hospitals in 18 states, the duration of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was assessed among adults aged ≥18 years. Among 3,089 hospitalized adults (including 1,194 COVID-19 case-patients and 1,895 non-COVID-19 control-patients), the median age was 59 years, 48.7% were female, and 21.1% had an immunocompromising condition. Overall, 141 (11.8%) case-patients and 988 (52.1%) controls were fully vaccinated (defined as receipt of the second dose of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines ≥14 days before illness onset), with a median interval of 65 days (range = 14-166 days) after receipt of second dose. VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization during the full surveillance period was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82%-88%) overall and 90% (95% CI = 87%-92%) among adults without immunocompromising conditions. VE against COVID-19- associated hospitalization was 86% (95% CI = 82%-90%) 2-12 weeks and 84% (95% CI = 77%-90%) 13-24 weeks from receipt of the second vaccine dose, with no significant change between these periods (p = 0.854). Whole genome sequencing of 454 case-patient specimens found that 242 (53.3%) belonged to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage and 74 (16.3%) to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) lineage. Effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was sustained over a 24-week period, including among groups at higher risk for severe COVID-19; ongoing monitoring is needed as new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. To reduce their risk for hospitalization, all eligible persons should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk.

Three COVID-19 vaccines are authorized or approved for use among adults in the United States (1,2). Two 2-dose mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273 from Moderna and BNT162b2 from Pfizer-BioNTech, received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020 for persons aged ≥18 years and aged ≥16 years, respectively. A 1-dose viral vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2 from Janssen [Johnson & Johnson]) received EUA in February 2021 for persons aged ≥18 years (3). The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received FDA approval for persons aged ≥16 years on August 23, 2021 (4). Current guidelines from FDA and CDC recommend vaccination of eligible persons with one of these three products, without preference for any specific vaccine (4,5). To assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of these three products in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization, CDC and collaborators conducted a case-control analysis among 3,689 adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized at 21 U.S. hospitals across 18 states during March 11-August 15, 2021. An additional analysis compared serum antibody levels (anti-spike immunoglobulin G [IgG] and anti-receptor binding domain [RBD] IgG) to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, among 100 healthy volunteers enrolled at three hospitals 2-6 weeks after full vaccination with the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. Patients with immunocompromising conditions were excluded. VE against COVID-19 hospitalizations was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 91%-95%) than for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%; 95% CI = 85%-91%) (p = 0.011); VE for both mRNA vaccines was higher than that for the Janssen vaccine (71%; 95% CI = 56%-81%) (all p

ObjectivesGiven finite ICU bed capacity, knowledge of ICU bed utilization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is critical to ensure future strategies for resource allocation and utilization. We sought to examine ICU census trends in relation to ICU bed capacity during the rapid increase in severe coronavirus disease 2019 cases early during the pandemic.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingThirteen geographically dispersed academic medical centers in the United States.Patients/subjectsWe obtained daily ICU censuses from March 26 to June 30, 2020, as well as prepandemic ICU bed capacities. The primary outcome was daily census of ICU patients stratified by coronavirus disease 2019 and mechanical ventilation status in relation to ICU capacity.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPrepandemic overall ICU capacity ranged from 62 to 225 beds (median 109). During the study period, the median daily coronavirus disease 2019 ICU census per hospital ranged from 1 to 84 patients, and the daily ICU census exceeded overall ICU capacity for at least 1 day at five institutions. The number of critically ill patients exceeded ICU capacity for a median (interquartile range) of 17 (12-50) of 97 days at these five sites. All 13 institutions experienced decreases in their noncoronavirus disease ICU population, whereas local coronavirus disease 2019 cases increased. Coronavirus disease 2019 patients reached their greatest proportion of ICU capacity on April 12, 2020, when they accounted for 44% of ICU patients across all participating hospitals. Maximum ICU census ranged from 52% to 289% of overall ICU capacity, with three sites less than 80%, four sites 80-100%, five sites 100-128%, and one site 289%.ConclusionsFrom March to June 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to ICU censuses greater than ICU bed capacity at fives of 13 institutions evaluated. These findings demonstrate the short-term adaptability of U.S. healthcare institutions in redirecting limited resources to accommodate a public health emergency.

Most persons infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), develop virus-specific antibodies within several weeks, but antibody titers might decline over time. Understanding the timeline of antibody decline is important for interpreting SARS-CoV-2 serology results. Serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline health care personnel at 13 hospitals and tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 during April 3-June 19, 2020, and again approximately 60 days later to assess this timeline. The percentage of participants who experienced seroreversion, defined as an antibody signal-to-threshold ratio >1.0 at baseline and

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Prolonged symptom duration and disability are common in adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Characterizing return to baseline health among outpatients with milder COVID-19 illness is important for understanding the full spectrum of COVID-19-associated illness and tailoring public health messaging, interventions, and policy. During April 15-June 25, 2020, telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults aged ≥18 years who had a first positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at an outpatient visit at one of 14 U.S. academic health care systems in 13 states. Interviews were conducted 14-21 days after the test date. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, baseline chronic medical conditions, symptoms present at the time of testing, whether those symptoms had resolved by the interview date, and whether they had returned to their usual state of health at the time of interview. Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days from testing date), including 26% among those aged 18-34 years, 32% among those aged 35-49 years, and 47% among those aged ≥50 years. Among respondents reporting cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath at the time of testing, 43%, 35%, and 29%, respectively, continued to experience these symptoms at the time of the interview. These findings indicate that COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted. Preventative measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and the consistent and correct use of face coverings in public, should be strongly encouraged to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2.