Search

Background: In test-negative studies of vaccine effectiveness (VE), including patients with co-circulating, vaccine-preventable, respiratory pathogens in the control group for the pathogen of interest can introduce a downward bias on VE estimates., Methods: A multicenter sentinel surveillance network in the US prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness from September 1, 2022-March 31, 2023. We evaluated bias in estimates of VE against influenza-associated and COVID-19-associated hospitalization based on: inclusion vs exclusion of patients with a co-circulating virus among VE controls; observance of VE against the co-circulating virus (rather than the virus of interest), unadjusted and adjusted for vaccination against the virus of interest; and observance of influenza or COVID-19 against a sham outcome of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)., Results: Overall VE against influenza-associated hospitalizations was 6 percentage points lower when patients with COVID-19 were included in the control group, and overall VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalizations was 2 percentage points lower when patients with influenza were included in the control group. Analyses of VE against the co-circulating virus and against the sham outcome of RSV showed that downward bias was largely attributable the correlation of vaccination status across pathogens, but also potentially attributable to other sources of residual confounding in VE models., Conclusion: Excluding cases of confounding respiratory pathogens from the control group in VE analysis for a pathogen of interest can reduce downward bias. This real-world analysis demonstrates that such exclusion is a helpful bias mitigation strategy, especially for measuring influenza VE, which included a high proportion of COVID-19 cases among controls., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Michelle Ng Gong reports grants from NHLBI as a HART co-investigator and APS steering committee co-chair, support for travel to the ATS meeting, participating on an advisory board from Novartis, Philips Healthcase, Regeneron, and Radiomater, and participating on the DSMB for Best clinical trials, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports receiving compensation for participation in an advisory board for Merck, and receiving research support from CDC, NIH, FDA, AHRQ and SyneosHealth, outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa receives current support from Merck (investigator-initiated grant), past support from Sanofi and Quidel, and served on an advisory board for Seqirus, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports receiving research funding from Dompe pharmaceuticals, 4D Medical, Eli Lilly, and Direct Biologics for patient enrollment in studies, outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports consulting fees and research support from Roche, and research funding from NIAID, NSF, CDC, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, outside the submitted work. Ithan Peltan reports funding from NIH (R35GM151147), funding from NHLBI and Janssen, and payments to his institution from Regeneron, Bluejay Diagnostics, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Mayur Ramesh reports participating on an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Ivana A Vaughn reports funding from CDC via University of Michigan for US Flu VE Network, funding from eMaxHealth through her institution, and funding from Lilly USA through her institution, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Assessments of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness are needed to monitor the protection provided by updated vaccines against severe COVID-19. We evaluated the effectiveness of original monovalent and bivalent (ancestral strain and Omicron BA.4/5) COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and severe in-hospital outcomes., Methods: During September 8, 2022 to August 31, 2023, adults aged ≥ 18 years hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness were enrolled at 26 hospitals in 20 US states. Using a test-negative case-control design, we estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) with multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, admission date, and geographic region., Results: Among 7028 patients, 2924 (41.6%) were COVID-19 case patients, and 4104 (58.4%) were control patients. Compared to unvaccinated patients, absolute VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 6% (-7%-17%) for original monovalent doses only (median time since last dose [IQR] = 421 days [304-571]), 52% (39%-61%) for a bivalent dose received 7-89 days earlier, and 13% (-10%-31%) for a bivalent dose received 90-179 days earlier. Absolute VE against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation or death was 51% (34%-63%) for original monovalent doses only, 61% (35%-77%) for a bivalent dose received 7-89 days earlier, and 50% (11%-71%) for a bivalent dose received 90-179 days earlier., Conclusion: Bivalent vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and severe in-hospital outcomes within 3 months of receipt, followed by a decline in protection to a level similar to that remaining from previous original monovalent vaccination by 3-6 months. These results underscore the benefit of remaining up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines., (Published 2024. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This study sought to externally validate and compare proposed methods for stratifying sepsis risk at emergency department (ED) triage., Methods: This nested case/control study enrolled ED patients from four hospitals in Utah and evaluated the performance of previously-published sepsis risk scores amenable to use at ED triage based on their area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC, which balances positive predictive value and sensitivity) and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC, which balances sensitivity and specificity). Score performance for predicting whether patients met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was compared to patients' assigned ED triage score (Canadian Triage Acuity Score [CTAS]) with adjustment for multiple comparisons., Results: Among 2000 case/control patients, 981 met Sepsis-3 criteria on final adjudication. The best performing sepsis risk scores were the Predict Sepsis version #3 (AUPRC 0.183, 95 % CI 0.148-0.256; AUROC 0.859, 95 % CI 0.843-0.875) and Borelli scores (AUPRC 0.127, 95 % CI 0.107-0.160, AUROC 0.845, 95 % CI 0.829-0.862), which significantly outperformed CTAS (AUPRC 0.038, 95 % CI 0.035-0.042, AUROC 0.650, 95 % CI 0.628-0.671, p < 0.001 for all AUPRC and AUROC comparisons). The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited sensitivity of 0.670 and 0.678 and specificity of 0.902 and 0.834, respectively, at their recommended cutoff values and outperformed Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria (AUPRC 0.083, 95 % CI 0.070-0.102, p = 0.052 and p = 0.078, respectively; AUROC 0.775, 95 % CI 0.756-0.795, p < 0.001 for both scores)., Conclusions: The Predict Sepsis and Borelli scores exhibited improved performance including increased specificity and positive predictive values for sepsis identification at ED triage compared to CTAS and SIRS criteria., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Outside the present work, KR reports issued patent, IDP reports grant funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and payments to his institution for study enrollments from Regeneron and Bluejay Diagnostics, SMB reports royalties on a patent from ReddyPort. STY reports industry grant from CoLabs, and JRB reports payment from JAJ LLC medical consulting. Other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Sepsis care delivery-including the initiation of prompt, appropriate antimicrobials-remains suboptimal. Objectives: This study was conducted to determine direct and off-target effects of emergency department (ED) sepsis care reorganization. Methods: This pragmatic pilot trial enrolled adult patients who presented from November 2019 to February 2021 to an ED in Utah before and after implementation of a multimodal, team-based "Code Sepsis" protocol. Patients who presented to two other EDs where usual care was continued served as contemporaneous control subjects. The primary outcome was door-to-antimicrobial time among patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria before ED departure. Secondary and safety outcomes included all-cause 30-day mortality, antimicrobial utilization and overtreatment, and antimicrobial-associated adverse events. Multivariable regression analyses used difference-in-differences methods to account for trends in outcomes unrelated to the studied intervention. Results: Code Sepsis protocol activation ( N  = 307) exhibited 8.5% sensitivity and 66% positive predictive value for patients meeting sepsis criteria before ED departure. Among 10,151 patients who met sepsis criteria during the study, adjusted difference-in-differences analysis demonstrated a 13-minute (95% confidence interval = 7-19) decrease in door-to-antimicrobial time associated with Code Sepsis implementation ( P  < 0.001). Mortality and clinical safety outcomes were unchanged, but Code Sepsis implementation was associated with increased false-positive presumptive infection diagnoses among patients who met sepsis criteria in the ED and increased antimicrobial utilization. Conclusions: Implementation of a team-based protocol for rapid sepsis evaluation and treatment during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic's first year was associated with decreased ED door-to-antimicrobial time but also increased antimicrobial utilization. Measurement of both patient-centered and off-target effects of sepsis care improvement interventions is essential to comprehensive assessment of their value. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04148989).

Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) was initiated by the US government to rapidly develop and test vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19 in 2020. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group selected ACTIV trial teams and clinical networks to expeditiously develop and launch master protocols based on therapeutic targets and patient populations. The suite of clinical trials was designed to collectively inform therapeutic care for COVID-19 outpatient, inpatient, and intensive care populations globally. In this report, we highlight challenges, strategies, and solutions around clinical protocol development and regulatory approval to document our experience and propose plans for future similar healthcare emergencies., Competing Interests: The authors declare none., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: COVID-19 is a strong risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 with VTE., Methods: Adults hospitalized at 21 sites between March 2021 and October 2022 with symptoms of acute respiratory illness were assessed for COVID-19, completion of the original monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination series, and VTE. Prevalence of VTE was compared between unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with COVID-19. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was calculated using a test negative design. Vaccine effectiveness was also stratified by predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant., Results: Among 18,811 patients (median age 63 [IQR:50-73], 49% women, 59% non-Hispanic White, 20% non-Hispanic Black, 14% Hispanic, and median of 2 comorbid conditions [IQR:1-3]), 9,792 were admitted with COVID-19 (44% vaccinated) and 9,019 were test-negative controls (73% vaccinated). Among patients with COVID-19, 601 were diagnosed with VTE by hospital day 28, of whom 170 were vaccinated. VTE was more common among unvaccinated than vaccinated COVID-19 patients (7.8% versus 4.0%; p=0.001). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE was 84% (95% CI: 80-87%) overall. Vaccine effectiveness stratified by predominant circulating variant was 88% (73-95%) for alpha, 93% (90-95%) for delta, and 68% (58-76%) for omicron variants., Conclusions and Relevance: Vaccination with the original monovalent mRNA series was associated with a decrease in COVID-19 hospitalization with VTE, though data detailing prior history of VTE and use of anticoagulation were not available. These findings will inform risk-benefit considerations for those considering vaccination., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third leading cause of preventable hospital-associated (HA) death. Most HA-VTE, including fatal pulmonary emboli, occur among medically ill patients. The rate of symptomatic VTE more than doubles over the first 21 days after hospital discharge. Trials have demonstrated that the burden of HA-VTE may be reduced with postdischarge thromboprophylaxis; however, few patients receive this therapy. We formerly validated the ability of eVTE (eVTE is the abbreviation for a risk assessment tool constituted by 2 calculations: one predicts 90-day VTE and the other predicts 30-day major bleeding derived from only elements of the complete blood count and basic metabolic panel and age) to identify medical patients being discharged with both an elevated risk of VTE and a low risk of bleeding., Objectives: Implement a cluster-randomized, stepped wedge, type II hybrid implementation/effectiveness trial generating an alert among select at-risk patients upon discharge for implementation of thrombosis chemoprophylaxis in a 23-hospital not-for-profit healthcare system., Methods: We use the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework to guide implementation and outcomes reporting., Results: The primary outcome for aim 1 (implementation) is the prescription of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 30 days as postdischarge thromboprophylaxis among at-risk patients. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes (effectiveness) are the 90-day composite of symptomatic VTE, myocardial infartcion, nonhemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, and 30-day major bleeding., Conclusion: The eVTE trial will provide high-quality, real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of a pragmatic intervention to implement targeted postdischarge thromboprophylaxis using decision support embedded in the electronic health record., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Assessing variant-specific COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as "JN lineages"), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages., Methods: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated effectiveness of an updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression., Results: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7-89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%-67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%-53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46-1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations., Conclusions: Updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during sepsis is common, but models designed to stratify stroke risk excluded patients with secondary AF. We assessed the predictive validity of CHA 2 DS 2 VASc scores among patients with new-onset AF during sepsis and developed a novel stroke prediction model incorporating presepsis and intrasepsis characteristics., Methods: We included patients ≥40 years old who survived hospitalizations with sepsis and new-onset AF across 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals from January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2017. We calculated the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for CHA 2 DS 2 VASc scores to predict stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 1 year after a hospitalization with new-onset AF during sepsis using Fine-Gray models with death as competing risk. We similarly derived and validated a novel model using presepsis and intrasepsis characteristics associated with 1-year stroke/TIA risk., Results: Among 82,748 adults hospitalized with sepsis, 3992 with new-onset AF (median age: 80 years, median CHA 2 DS 2 VASc of 4) survived to discharge, among whom 70 (2.1%) experienced stroke or TIA outcome and 1393 (41.0%) died within 1 year of sepsis. The CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score was not predictive of stroke risk after sepsis (AUC: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.52). A newly derived model among 2555 (64%) patients in the derivation set and 1437 (36%) in the validation set included 13 variables and produced an AUC of 0.61 (0.49-0.73) in derivation and 0.54 (0.43-0.65) in validation., Conclusion: Current models do not accurately stratify risk of stroke following new-onset AF secondary to sepsis. New tools are required to guide anticoagulation decisions following new-onset AF in sepsis., (© 2024 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Introduction: Septic shock is a severe form of sepsis that has a high mortality rate, and a substantial proportion of these patients will develop cardiac dysfunction, often termed septic cardiomyopathy (SCM). Some SCM patients may develop frank cardiac failure, termed sepsis-related cardiogenic shock (SeRCS). Little is known of SeRCS. This study describes baseline characteristics of patients with SCM and SeRCS compared to patients with septic shock without cardiac dysfunction. We compare clinical outcomes among SCM, SeRCS, and septic shock, and identify risk factors for the development of SCM and SeRCS., Methods: Septic patients admitted to the ICU with an echocardiogram obtained within 72 hours were included. Left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤55% was used to define SCM, and cardiac index ≤2.1 L/min/m2 among patients with SCM defined SeRCS. Machine learning was used to identify risk factors for development of SCM and SeRCS. Logistic regression was used to compare mortality among groups., Results: Among 1229 patients, 977 patients had septic shock without cardiac dysfunction, 207 had SCM, and 45 had SeRCS. In patients with septic shock, the strongest predictor for developing SCM and SeRCs was a prior history of cardiac dysfunction. Mortality did not significantly differ among the three groups., Conclusions: SCM and SeRCS affect a minority of patients with septic shock, disproportionately affecting individuals with a history of cardiac disease. We did not identify a mortality difference associated with SCM or SeRCS. Additional work is needed to define further subtypes and treatment options for this patient population., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Hendrickson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Influenza circulation during the 2022-2023 season in the United States largely returned to pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-pandemic patterns and levels. Influenza A(H3N2) viruses were detected most frequently this season, predominately clade 3C.2a1b.2a, a close antigenic match to the vaccine strain., Methods: To understand effectiveness of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failure, and death, a multicenter sentinel surveillance network in the United States prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness between 1 October 2022, and 28 February 2023. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failures, and death were measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients., Results: A total of 3707 patients, including 714 influenza cases (33% vaccinated) and 2993 influenza- and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls (49% vaccinated) were analyzed. VE against influenza-associated hospitalization was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%-46%) and varied by age (18-64 years: 47% [30%-60%]; ≥65 years: 28% [10%-43%]), and virus (A[H3N2]: 29% [6%-46%], A[H1N1]: 47% [23%-64%]). VE against more severe influenza-associated outcomes included: 41% (29%-50%) against influenza with hypoxemia treated with supplemental oxygen; 65% (56%-72%) against influenza with respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal failure treated with organ support; and 66% (40%-81%) against influenza with respiratory failure treated with invasive mechanical ventilation., Conclusions: During an early 2022-2023 influenza season with a well-matched influenza vaccine, vaccination was associated with reduced risk of influenza-associated hospitalization and organ failure., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. S. B. reports participating as the DSMB chair for Hamilton Ventilators, outside the submitted work. J. C. reports receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DoD), and a travel grant from Fisher-Paykel, outside the submitted work. S. C. reports consulting for PureTech Health in 2021–2022 and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in 2022, outside the submitted work. A. D. reports participating on an advisory board for ALung Technologies and being a principal investigator (PI) for the PETAL Network, outside the submitted work. C. G. G. reports consulting fees from Merck and received research support from Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, NIH, CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and AHRQ, outside the submitted work. M. N. G. reports receiving grant funding from NIH and AHRQ for research, honorarium for giving Medicine grand rounds at Yale and Washington Healthcare, fees for DSMB for Palm trial and Regeneron trials on monoclonal antibodies, and fees for serving on scientific advisory board for Philips Healthcare on monitoring, outside the submitted work. R. G. reports consulting for Gilead Sciences, Eli Lily, GSK, Janssen, and AbbVie, being on an advisory board for Gilead Sciences, Eli Lily, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and AstraZeneca, speaker bureau for Pfizer and AbbVie, and gift-in-kind to institution from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. N. H. reports prior grant support from Sanofi and Quidel, and current funding from Merck, outside the submitted work. A. L. reports being a consultant for Roche on a clinical trial of baloxavir, outside the submitted work. Christopher Mallow reports medical legal consulting, outside the submitted work. I. P. reports receiving grants from NHLBI, NIGMS, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Regeneron, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

Importance: On June 21, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older using shared clinical decision-making. Understanding the severity of RSV disease in adults can help guide this clinical decision-making., Objective: To describe disease severity among adults hospitalized with RSV and compare it with the severity of COVID-19 and influenza disease by vaccination status., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 US states from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Clinical data during each patient's hospitalization were collected using standardized forms. Data were analyzed from August to October 2023., Exposures: RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection., Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, severity of RSV disease was compared with COVID-19 and influenza severity, by COVID-19 and influenza vaccination status, for a range of clinical outcomes, including the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death., Results: Of 7998 adults (median [IQR] age, 67 [54-78] years; 4047 [50.6%] female) included, 484 (6.1%) were hospitalized with RSV, 6422 (80.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1092 (13.7%) were hospitalized with influenza. Among patients with RSV, 58 (12.0%) experienced IMV or death, compared with 201 of 1422 unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 (14.1%) and 458 of 5000 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (9.2%), as well as 72 of 699 unvaccinated patients with influenza (10.3%) and 20 of 393 vaccinated patients with influenza (5.1%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of IMV or in-hospital death were not significantly different among patients hospitalized with RSV and unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.13; P = .22) or influenza (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; P = .35); however, the odds of IMV or death were significantly higher among patients hospitalized with RSV compared with vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .03) or influenza disease (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.62-4.86; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized in this US cohort during the 16 months before the first RSV vaccine recommendations, RSV disease was less common but similar in severity compared with COVID-19 or influenza disease among unvaccinated patients and more severe than COVID-19 or influenza disease among vaccinated patients for the most serious outcomes of IMV or death.

In September 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended updated 2023-2024 (monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccination for all persons aged ≥6 months to prevent COVID-19, including severe disease. However, few estimates of updated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended illness are available. This analysis evaluated VE of an updated COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19-associated emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during September 2023-January 2024 using a test-negative, case-control design with data from two CDC VE networks. VE against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters was 51% (95% CI = 47%-54%) during the first 7-59 days after an updated dose and 39% (95% CI = 33%-45%) during the 60-119 days after an updated dose. VE estimates against COVID-19-associated hospitalization from two CDC VE networks were 52% (95% CI = 47%-57%) and 43% (95% CI = 27%-56%), with a median interval from updated dose of 42 and 47 days, respectively. Updated COVID-19 vaccine provided increased protection against COVID-19-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalization among immunocompetent adults. These results support CDC recommendations for updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination. All persons aged ≥6 months should receive updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, and participation on the data safety monitoring board for an unrelated, local study at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports serving as the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics co-chair of the ID and Immunization Committee, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports support from Biomeme and Seastar, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports other funding from Merck, contracts from Syneos Health and the Food and Drug Administration, and grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grant funding from 4DMedical, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, Ely Lilly, and Roche Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports research support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, and consulting fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Christopher Mallow reports medical legal consulting, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports research funding from Merck, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grant support from NIH, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and funding to his institution from Bluejay Diagnostics and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Karthik Natarajan reports institutional support from NIH, Office of the Director, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Brian E. Dixon reports Institutional support from NIH, National Library of Medicine in the form of a T15 training grant in biomedical informatics, salary support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, royalties from Elsevier, Inc. for a book on health information technology and from Springer Nature for a book on health information technology. Nicola P. Klein reports support from GSK, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, and Seqirus for work unrelated to this report. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objectives: Inadequate self-efficacy of resuscitation team members may impair team performance, but high self-efficacy does not guarantee competence. We evaluated the relationship between individual self-efficacy and resuscitation team competence., Design: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial., Setting: High-fidelity in situ in-hospital cardiac arrest simulations at seven hospitals in Utah., Subjects: Multidisciplinary cardiac arrest resuscitation team members., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Resuscitation team members completed surveys evaluating resuscitation self-efficacy (confidence in resuscitation role, difficulty thinking clearly, and concerns about committing errors) after each simulation. The primary outcome was event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Secondary outcomes included other measures of resuscitation quality, advanced cardiac life support protocol adherence, and nontechnical team performance. Analyses employed the Datta-Satten rank-sum method to account for response clustering within simulation events. Of 923 participants in 76 analyzable simulations, 612 (66%) submitted complete surveys and 33 (43%) resuscitation teams achieved hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75% versus less than or equal to 75% was not associated with the percentage of resuscitation team members reporting confidence in their team role ( n = 213 [74%] vs. n = 251 [77%], respectively, p = 0.18), lack of difficulty thinking clearly ( n = 186 [65%] vs. n = 214 [66%], p = 0.92), or lack of worry about making errors ( n = 155 [54%] vs. n = 180 [55%], p = 0.41). Team members' confidence was also not associated with secondary outcomes, except that teams with confident members had better values for composite (3.55 [interquartile range, IQR 3.00-3.82] vs. 3.18 [IQR 2.57-3.64], p = 0.024) and global (8 [7-9] vs. 8 [6-8], p = 0.029) scales measuring nontechnical team performance., Conclusions: Team members' self-efficacy was not associated with most team-level competence metrics during simulated cardiac arrest resuscitation. These data suggest that self-efficacy should have a limited role for evaluation of resuscitation training programs and for initial certification and monitoring of individual resuscitation team members' competence., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

The transcriptional and phenotypic characteristics that define alveolar monocyte and macrophage subsets in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are poorly understood. Here, we apply CITE-seq (single-cell RNA-sequencing and cell-surface protein quantification) to bronchoalveolar lavage and blood specimens longitudinally collected from participants with AHRF to identify alveolar myeloid subsets, and then validate their identity in an external cohort using flow cytometry. We identify alveolar myeloid subsets with transcriptional profiles that differ from other lung diseases as well as several subsets with similar transcriptional profiles as reported in healthy participants (Metallothionein) or patients with COVID-19 (CD163/LGMN). We use information from CITE-seq to determine cell-surface proteins that distinguish transcriptional subsets (CD14, CD163, CD123, CD71, CD48, CD86 and CD44). In the external cohort, we find a higher proportion of CD163/LGMN alveolar macrophages are associated with mortality in AHRF. We report a parsimonious set of cell-surface proteins that distinguish alveolar myeloid subsets using scalable approaches that can be applied to clinical cohorts., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

On June 21, 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for adults aged ≥60 years, offered to individual adults using shared clinical decision-making. Informed use of these vaccines requires an understanding of RSV disease severity. To characterize RSV-associated severity, 5,784 adults aged ≥60 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 U.S. states during February 1, 2022-May 31, 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare RSV disease severity with COVID-19 and influenza severity on the basis of the following outcomes: 1) standard flow (<30 L/minute) oxygen therapy, 2) high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 3) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 4) invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Overall, 304 (5.3%) enrolled adults were hospitalized with RSV, 4,734 (81.8%) with COVID-19 and 746 (12.9%) with influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive standard flow oxygen, HFNC or NIV, and ICU admission than were those hospitalized with COVID-19 or influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive IMV or die compared with patients hospitalized with influenza (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.33-3.26). Among hospitalized older adults, RSV was less common, but was associated with more severe disease than COVID-19 or influenza. High disease severity in older adults hospitalized with RSV is important to consider in shared clinical decision-making regarding RSV vaccination., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Samuel M. Brown reports that ReddyPort pays royalties on his invention of an airway device, outside the submitted work. Jonathan D. Casey reports a travel grant from Fisher and Paykel, outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and participation as a data safety monitoring board member for a study at University of California, Los Angeles outside the submitted work. James D. Chappell reports participating as a coinvestigator for a Merck investigator studies program, where he supported surveillance of respiratory syncytial virus infection among hospitalized children in Jordan, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from Abt Associates and Westat, having served as cochair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society (TPS), and receiving an honorarium for serving as a TPS Project Firstline webinar speaker panelist for Respiratory Virus Review: Clinical Considerations and IPC Guidance, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Defense, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports a grant from NIH outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports grants from NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Food and Drug Administration, and Syneos Health, and receipt of compensation for participation in an advisory board for Merck outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports receiving grants from Sanofi, Merck, and Quidel outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports receiving grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GSK outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports receiving grants from FluLab, NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund and fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir respectively, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports a grant from Merck outside the submitted work. Christopher Mallow reports medical legal consulting outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Mayur Ramesh reports participating in a nonbranded speaker program supported by AstraZeneca and serving on an advisory board for Moderna outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Rationale: Routine spontaneous awakening and breathing trial coordination (SAT/SBT) improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients, but adherence varies. Understanding barriers to and facilitators of consistent daily use of SAT/SBT (implementation determinants) can guide the development of implementation strategies to increase adherence to these evidence-based interventions. Objectives: We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study to measure variation in the routine daily use of SAT/SBT and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in SAT/SBT use across 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in urban and rural locations within an integrated, community-based health system. Methods: We described the patient population and measured adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT from January to June 2021, selecting four sites with varied adherence levels for semistructured field interviews. We conducted key informant interviews with critical care nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians/advanced practice clinicians ( n  = 55) from these four sites between October and December 2021 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants of SAT/SBT use. Results: The 15 sites had 1,901 ICU admissions receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ⩾24 hours during the measurement period. The mean IMV patient age was 58 years, and the median IMV duration was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 2.5-11.9). Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence (within 2 h) was estimated at 21% systemwide (site range, 9-68%). ICU clinicians were generally familiar with SAT/SBT but varied in their knowledge and beliefs about what constituted an evidence-based SAT/SBT. Clinicians reported that SAT/SBT coordination was difficult in the context of existing ICU workflows, and existing protocols did not explicitly define how coordination should be performed. The lack of an agreed-upon system-level measure for tracking daily use of SAT/SBT led to uncertainty regarding what constituted adherence. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic increased clinician workloads, impacting performance. Conclusions: Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence varied substantially across 15 ICUs within an integrated, community-based health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including knowledge deficits, challenges regarding workflow coordination, and the lack of performance measurement, should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT and minimize harm related to the prolonged use of mechanical ventilation and sedation.

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients on mechanical ventilation often require sedation and analgesia to improve comfort and decrease pain. Prolonged sedation and analgesia, however, may increase time on mechanical ventilation, risk for ventilator associated pneumonia, and delirium. Coordinated interruptions in sedation [spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)] and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) increase ventilator-free days and improve mortality. Coordination of SATs and SBTs is difficult with substantial implementation barriers due to difficult-to-execute sequencing between nurses and respiratory therapists. Telehealth-enabled remote care has the potential to overcome these barriers and improve coordinated SAT and SBT adherence by enabling proactive high-risk patient monitoring, surveillance, and real-time assistance to frontline ICU teams., Methods: The telehealth-enabled, real-time audit and feedback for clinician adherence (TEACH) study will determine whether adding a telehealth augmented real-time audit and feedback to a usual supervisor-led audit and feedback intervention will yield higher coordinated SAT and SBT adherence and more ventilator-free days in mechanically ventilated patients than a usual supervisor-led audit and feedback intervention alone in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized clinical trial in 12 Intermountain Health hospitals with 15 ICUs. In the active comparator control group (six hospitals), the only intervention is the usual supervisor-led audit and feedback implementation. The telehealth-enabled support (TEACH) intervention in six hospitals adds real-time identification of patients eligible for a coordinated SAT and SBT and consultative input from telehealth respiratory therapists, nurses, and physicians to the bedside clinicians to promote adherence including real-time assistance with execution. All intubated and mechanically ventilated patients ≥ 16 years of age are eligible for enrollment except for patients who die on the day of intubation or have preexisting brain death. Based on preliminary power analyses, we plan a 36-month intervention period that includes a 90-day run-in period. Estimated enrollment in the final analysis is up to 9900 mechanically ventilated patients over 33 months., Discussion: The TEACH study will enhance implementation science by providing insight into how a telehealth intervention augmenting a usual audit and feedback implementation may improve adherence to coordinated SAT and SBT and increase ventilator-free days., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05141396 , registered 12/02/2021., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SMB reports funding from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and chairing a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Hamilton Ventilators, outside of the study. CEB reports funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the Aviptadil study, during the conduct of the study. BG reports grants from the NIH, during the conduct of the study. SS reports a grant from the NIH, during the conduct of the study. ANP reports grants from the Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and consulting fees from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, outside of the submitted work. IDP reports funding from NIH and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, during the conduct of the study, a grant from Janssen for a study of influenza patient reported outcomes, and a contract with Regeneron for a COVID-19 therapy trial, outside of the submitted work. JRB reports a grant from the NIH, during the conduct of the study, grants from the NIH, Quantum Leap Healthcare Collaborative, and Sedana Medical, consulting fees from Sedana Medical, Biomarck, and Global Blood Therapeutics, and compensation from Hamilton Medical for participation as a medical monitor, outside of the submitted work. ESHa reports study materials from NeuroRx and Gilead through a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) subcontract, during the conduct of the study, subcontracts with Bristol Meyers Squibb (BMS), Allergan, Gilead, and Janssen for the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-1) clinical trial, subcontracts with AstraZeneca, Brii Biosciences, Vir Biotechnology, and Eli Lilly for the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) clinical trial, and additional subcontracts with Rigel, APEIRON Biologics, and Trevena for the Novel Experimental COVID-19 Therapies Affecting Host Response (NECTAR) clinical trial, outside of the submitted work. EAM reports study materials from NeuroRx and Gilead through an NHLBI subcontract, during the conduct of the study, subcontracts with BMS, Allergan, Gilead, and Janssen for the ACTIV-1 clinical trial, subcontracts with AstraZeneca, Brii Biosciences, Vir Biotechnology, and Eli Lilly for the TICO clinical trial, and additional subcontracts with Rigel, APEIRON Biologics, and Trevena for the NECTAR clinical trial, outside of the submitted work. MAGB reports study materials from NeuroRx and Gilead through an NHLBI subcontract, during the conduct of the study, subcontracts with BMS, Allergan, Gilead, and Janssen for the ACTIV-1 clinical trial, subcontracts with AstraZeneca, Brii Biosciences, Vir Biotechnology, and Eli Lilly for the TICO clinical trial, and subcontracts with Rigel, APEIRON Biologics, and Trevena for the NECTAR clinical trial, outside of the submitted work. KSM reports grants and contracts from NIH, NHLBI, and the Society for Critical Care Medicine, participation as a steering committee member for Roivant-Kinevant Sciences, and employment as a clinical research physician at Chiesi USA, outside of submitted work. JM reports receiving study materials and funding from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine for the study protocol, during the conduct of the study. CH reports funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in the form of per-patient payments for A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized, Blinded Controlled Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Investigational Therapeutics for Hospitalized Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19, during the conduct of the study. AK reports grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, 4D Medical, United Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Dompe Pharmaceuticals and consulting fees from Dompe Pharmaceuticals for clinical trial design, outside of the submitted work. AD reports grants from NHLBI Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury network and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and data safety monitoring board (DSMB) or advisory board participation for Alung Technologies, outside of the submitted work. SD reports a grant from Chest Sonosite Ultrasound to study the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in patients with COVID-19, during the conduct of the study. AJG reports payment from Sound Pharmaceuticals for participation as a medical monitor for a COVID therapeutic trial, outside of the submitted work. USS reports consulting fees from Shionogi, Paratek, and ViiV Healthcare for participation on advisory boards and speaking fees from Shionogi and Paratek, outside of the submitted work. NJJ reports grants from the CDC, the US Department of Defense (DOD), and NIH and participation on a DSMB for the Legacy Health System, outside of the submitted work. MAM reports grants from NIH and NIAID, during the conduct of the study. NRA reports funding from NIH, during the conduct of the study. JDC reports grants from NIH and DOD, outside of the submitted work. DDM reports funding from the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF126), during the conduct of study. AAG reports funding from NIH, during the conduct of the study, grants or contracts from NIH, DOD, CDC, Faron Pharmaceuticals, and Abbvie, and participation on a DSMB or advisory board for NIH, outside of the submitted work. WHS reports funding from NIH and NIAID, during the conduct of the study. CFO reports contracts with NIH and NHLBI, outside of the submitted work. BTT reports a grant from NHLBI, consulting fees from Bayer, Genetec, and Novartis, and participation on a DSMB or advisory board for Aperion, outside of the submitted work. During a portion of this research, BTT had a financial interest in Direct Biologics, a developer and manufacturer of regenerative biologic products, including an investigational treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. BTT's interests were reviewed and are managed by Massachusetts General Hospital and Mass General Brigham in accordance with their conflict of interest policies, and had no relationship to the agents studied. VK reports subcontracts with University of Minnesota, NIAID, and NIH for the TICO and Therapeutics for Severely Ill Inpatients with COVID-19 platform trials, outside of the submitted work. AGB reports a grant from University of Minnesota, during the conduct of the study, grants from the Medical Reserve Corps and UKRI, payment from NIAID for participation on a COVID-19 Vaccines DSMB, and participation on the WHO Trial Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, outside of the submitted work. JDN reports grants from NIAID, NIH, and Leidos Biomedical, outside of the submitted work. HCL reports employment from NIAID, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Understanding the changing epidemiology of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs research priorities and public health policies., Methods: Among adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 between 11 March 2021, and 31 August 2022 at 21 hospitals in 18 states, those hospitalized during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-predominant period (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5) were compared to those from earlier Alpha- and Delta-predominant periods. Demographic characteristics, biomarkers within 24 hours of admission, and outcomes, including oxygen support and death, were assessed., Results: Among 9825 patients, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 years (47-72), 47% were women, and 21% non-Hispanic Black. From the Alpha-predominant period (Mar-Jul 2021; N = 1312) to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineage-predominant period (Jun-Aug 2022; N = 1307): the percentage of patients who had ≥4 categories of underlying medical conditions increased from 11% to 21%; those vaccinated with at least a primary COVID-19 vaccine series increased from 7% to 67%; those ≥75 years old increased from 11% to 33%; those who did not receive any supplemental oxygen increased from 18% to 42%. Median (IQR) highest C-reactive protein and D-dimer concentration decreased from 42.0 mg/L (9.9-122.0) to 11.5 mg/L (2.7-42.8) and 3.1 mcg/mL (0.8-640.0) to 1.0 mcg/mL (0.5-2.2), respectively. In-hospital death peaked at 12% in the Delta-predominant period and declined to 4% during the BA.4/BA.5-predominant period., Conclusions: Compared to adults hospitalized during early COVID-19 variant periods, those hospitalized during Omicron-variant COVID-19 were older, had multiple co-morbidities, were more likely to be vaccinated, and less likely to experience severe respiratory disease, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and death., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. C. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DoD), outside the submitted work. J. C. reports receiving grants from the NIH, DoD, outside the submitted work. A. D, reports grants from the NIH and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) for the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) platform and Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) network respectively, as well as consulting fees for Alung Technologies, outside the submitted work. S. C. reports receiving consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and participating as a Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member for a neuromodulation study at University of California, Los Angeles, outside the submitted work. M. E. reports grants from NIH and Regeneron, personal funds for speaking at the ASPEN conference for Abbott Labs, and payment for testimony from Medical Legal Expert Witness, outside the submitted work. M. G. reports receiving grants from CDC, CDC-Abt Associates, CDC-Westat, and Janssen, and served as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. K. G. reports grants from NIH and DoD, outside the submitted work. A. G. reports receiving grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. M. N. G. reports grants from NHLBI, CDC, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), speaking at medicine grand rounds at New York Medical College, travel support for the American Thoracic Society (ATS) executive meeting and serving as ATS Chair Critical Care Assembly, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron, and participating on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. D. H. reports receiving grants from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. A. K. reports receiving grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline; and serves on the guidelines committee for Chest, outside the submitted work. J. K. reports a grant from NIH, outside the submitted work A. L. reports receiving grants from CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Flu Lab, and consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir respectively, outside the submitted work. E. M. reports grants from Flu Lab, Merck, and NIH outside the submitted work. T. N. reports receiving a grant from CDC, receiving a one-time payment for participating as a virtual webinar panelist for Clinical Updates in Heart Failure, and being a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. I. D, P. reports grants from NIH/NHLBI, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Regeneron, outside the submitted work. J. S. reports a grant from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. W. B. S, reports grants from NIH/NHLBI, outside the submitted work. J. W. reports a grant from NIH/NHLBI, payment for the American College of Emergency Physicians speaker honorarium and participating on the American Board of Internal Medicine Critical Care Exam Committee, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. Ca. reports grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DoD), outside the submitted work. J. Ch. reports grants from the NIH, DoD, and Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund, outside the submitted work. D. D. reports a grant from NIH, outside the submitted work. A. D. reports grants from the NIH and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) for the ACTIV platform and PETAL network, respectively; and consulting fees for Alung Technologies, outside the submitted work. M. E. reports grants from NIH and Regeneron; personal funds for speaking at the ASPEN conference for Abbott Labs; and payment for testimony from Medical Legal Expert Witness, outside the submitted work. A. F. reports grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. M. G. reports grants from CDC, CDC-Abt Associates, and CDC-Westat; and served as cochair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. K. G. reports grants from NIH and DoD; and support for MHSRS 2022 travel from the DoD, outside the submitted work. A. G. reports grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. M. N. G. reports grants from NHLBI, CDC, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; speaking at medicine grand rounds at New York Medical College; travel support for the American Thoracic Society (ATS) executive meeting and serving as ATS Chair Critical Care Assembly; data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) membership fees from Regeneron; and participating on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. C. G. reports grants from NIH, CDC, AHRQ, FDA, and Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health; and consulting fees from and participating on a DSMB for Merck, outside the submitted work. D. H. reports grants from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. N. H. reports grants from Sandofi and Quidel; and a Genentech educational grant to give a lecture, outside the submitted work. A. K. reports grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline; and serves on the guidelines committee for Chest, outside the submitted work. A. L. reports grants from CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund; and consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir, respectively, outside the submitted work. E. M. reports grants from Flu Lab, Merck, and NIH outside the submitted work. T. M. reports a grant from CDC; a one-time payment for participating as a virtual webinar panelist for Clinical Updates in Heart Failure; and being a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. I. D. P. reports grants from NIH and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. W. B. S. reports grants and support for meetings/travel from the NIH/NHLBI, outside the submitted work. J. W. reports payment for the American College of Emergency Physicians speaker honorarium and participating on the American Board of Internal Medicine Critical Care Exam Committee, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Accurate determination of COVID-19 vaccination status is necessary to produce reliable COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates. Data comparing differences in COVID-19 VE by vaccination sources (i.e., immunization information systems [IIS], electronic medical records [EMR], and self-report) are limited. We compared the number of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by each of these sources to assess agreement as well as differences in VE estimates using vaccination data from each individual source and vaccination data adjudicated from all sources combined., Methods: Adults aged ≥18 years who were hospitalized with COVID-like illness at 21 hospitals in 18 U.S. states participating in the IVY Network during February 1-August 31, 2022, were enrolled. Numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses identified by IIS, EMR, and self-report were compared in kappa agreement analyses. Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was estimated using multivariable logistic regression models to compare the odds of COVID-19 vaccination between SARS-CoV-2-positive case-patients and SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. VE was estimated using each source of vaccination data separately and all sources combined., Results: A total of 4499 patients were included. Patients with ≥1 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose were identified most frequently by self-report (n = 3570, 79 %), followed by IIS (n = 3272, 73 %) and EMR (n = 3057, 68 %). Agreement was highest between IIS and self-report for 4 doses with a kappa of 0.77 (95 % CI = 0.73-0.81). VE point estimates of 3 doses against COVID-19 hospitalization were substantially lower when using vaccination data from EMR only (VE = 31 %, 95 % CI = 16 %-43 %) than when using all sources combined (VE = 53 %, 95 % CI = 41 %-62%)., Conclusion: Vaccination data from EMR only may substantially underestimate COVID-19 VE., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) disclosure form. Funding for this work was provided to all participating sites by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships, which may be considered as potential competing interests: Samuel Brown reports institutional funds from Janssen for influenza research. Jonathan Casey reports a travel grant from Fischer and Paykel, outside the submitted work. Steven Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and participating as a DSMB member for a study at UCLA, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from CDC, CDC-Abt Associates, CDC-Westat, and Janssen, and served as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. Kevin Gibbs reports grants from NIH and DoD, as well as support for MHSRS 2022 travel from the DoD, outside the submitted work. Adit Ginde reports receiving grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports grants from NHLBI, CDC, AHRQ, speaking at medicine grand rounds at New York Medical College, travel support for the ATS executive meeting and serving as ATS Chair Critical Care Assembly, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron, and participating on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. Carlos Grijalva reports grants from NIH, CDC, AHRQ, FDA, Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health; receiving consulting fees from and participating on a DSMB for Merck, outside the submitted work. David Hager reports receiving grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports receiving grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline; and serves on the guidelines committee for Chest, outside the submitted work. Adam Lauring reports receiving grants from CDC, FluLab, NIAID, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir respectively, outside the submitted work. Emily Martin reports grants from Merck and NIH, outside the submitted work. Tresa McNeal reports receiving a grant from CDC, receiving a one-time payment for participating as a virtual webinar panelist for Clinical Updates in Heart Failure, and being a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Jennifer Wilson reports grants from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Guidelines emphasize rapid antibiotic treatment for sepsis, but infection presence is often uncertain at initial presentation. We investigated the incidence and drivers of false-positive presumptive infection diagnosis among emergency department (ED) patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria., Methods: For a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized after meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (acute organ failure and suspected infection including blood cultures drawn and intravenous antimicrobials administered) in 1 of 4 EDs from 2013 to 2017, trained reviewers first identified the ED-diagnosed source of infection and adjudicated the presence and source of infection on final assessment. Reviewers subsequently adjudicated final infection probability for a randomly selected 10% subset of subjects. Risk factors for false-positive infection diagnosis and its association with 30-day mortality were evaluated using multivariable regression., Results: Of 8267 patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED, 699 (8.5%) did not have an infection on final adjudication and 1488 (18.0%) patients with confirmed infections had a different source of infection diagnosed in the ED versus final adjudication (ie, initial/final source diagnosis discordance). Among the subset of patients whose final infection probability was adjudicated (n = 812), 79 (9.7%) had only "possible" infection and 77 (9.5%) were not infected. Factors associated with false-positive infection diagnosis included hypothermia, altered mental status, comorbidity burden, and an "unknown infection source" diagnosis in the ED (odds ratio: 6.39; 95% confidence interval: 5.14-7.94). False-positive infection diagnosis was not associated with 30-day mortality., Conclusions: In this large multihospital study, <20% of ED patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria had no infection or only possible infection on retrospective adjudication., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. I. D. P. and S. M. B. have received research support outside the present work from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and funding to their institution from Regeneron and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). S. M. B. has received royalties from Oxford University Press, research support from Sedana Medical and Faron, and payment for data safety monitoring board membership from New York University and Hamilton. E. A. S. reports research support outside the present work from CDC. C. L. H. reports research support outside the present work from NIH and the American Lung Association, support for meeting attendance and travel from Stanford University and the Critical Care Clinical Trials Consortium, and payment for data safety monitoring board membership from the I-SPY-COVID trial consortium. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Objectives: We implemented a computerized protocol for low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) to improve management and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with, and without, the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)., Design: Pragmatic, nonrandomized stepped wedge type II hybrid implementation/effectiveness trial., Setting: Twelve hospitals in an integrated healthcare system over a 2-year period., Patients: Patients greater than or equal to 18 years old who had initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department or ICU. We excluded patients who died or transitioned to comfort care on the day of admission to the ICU. We defined a subgroup of patients with ARDS for analysis., Interventions: Implementation of ventilator protocols for LTVV in the ICU., Measurements and Main Results: Our primary clinical outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) to day 28. Our primary process outcome was median initial set tidal volume. We included 8,692 mechanically ventilated patients, 3,282 (38%) of whom had ARDS. After implementation, set tidal volume reported as mL/kg predicted body weight decreased from median 6.1 mL/kg (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0-6.8 mL/kg) to 6.0 mL/kg (IQR, 6.0-6.6 mL/kg) ( p = 0.009). The percent of patients receiving LTVV (tidal volume ≤ 6.5 mL/kg) increased from 69.8% ( n = 1,721) to 72.5% ( n = 1,846) ( p = 0.036) after implementation. The percent of patients receiving greater than 8 mL/kg initial set tidal volume was reduced from 9.0% ( n = 222) to 6.7% ( n = 174) ( p = 0.005) after implementation. Among patients with ARDS, day 1 positive end-expiratory pressure increased from 6.7 to 8.0 cm H 2 O ( p < 0.001). We observed no difference in VFD (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24; p = 0.44), or in secondary outcomes of length of stay or mortality, either within the main cohort or the subgroup of patients with ARDS., Conclusions: We observed improved adherence to optimal ventilator management with implementation of a computerized protocol and reduction in the number of patients receiving tidal volumes greater than 8 mL/kg. We did not observe improvement in clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Dr. Grissom reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Peltan reports grants from the NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and funding to his institution from Regeneron and Asahi Kasei Pharma. Dr. Brown reports royalties from Oxford University Press and Brigham Young University Press, research support from the NIH, the Department of Defense, Faron, Sedana Medical, and Janssen, and payment for Data Safety Monitoring Board membership from New York University and Hamilton. Dr. Kuttler reports grant support from the NIH and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Srivastava reports grants from the NIH, the Agency for Healthcare Research, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Children’s Hospital Association for work conducted by the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Network. He is also a physician founder of the I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness and contingency planning, Synthesis by receiver) Patient Safety Institute. His equity is owned by his employer, Intermountain Healthcare. Drs. Leither’s, Brown’s, and Srivastava’s institutions received funding from NIH. Drs. Leither, Peltan, and Brown received support for article research from the NIH. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Jonathan D. Casey reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and a travel grant from Fisher and Paykel, outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting fees from PureTech Health and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, and participation as a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member for a study at UCLA, outside the submitted work. Abhijit Duggal reports grants from NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and consulting fees from Alung Technologies, outside the submitted work. David J. Douin reports a grant from NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences, outside the submitted work. Matthew C. Exline reports grants from NIH and Regeneron, honoria for speaking at the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition conference from Abbott Labs, and payment for testimony as a medical legal expert witness, outside the submitted work. D. Clark Files reports receiving a grant from NIH and participating on the Medpace DSMB, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports having served as co-chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. Kevin W. Gibbs reports grants from NIH and DoD, as well as support for travel to the 2022 Military Health System Research Symposium from DoD, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports receiving grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports grants from NHLBI, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), speaking at medicine grand rounds at Yale and Westchester Medical College, travel support from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and serving on the ATS board, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron and the Replenish Trial, and participating on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports grants from NIH, AHRQ, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health; receipt of consulting fees from and participation on a DSMB for Merck, outside the submitted work. David N. Hager reports receiving grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports receiving grants from Sanofi and Quidel, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports receiving grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, 4D Medical, Eli Lily, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline; and serves on the guidelines committee for Chest, outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports receiving grants from FluLab, NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche for consulting on oseltamivir and baloxavir respectively, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports grants from Merck and NIH, outside the submitted work. Tresa McNeal reports receiving a one-time payment for participating as a virtual webinar panelist for Clinical Updates in Heart Failure, and being a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. Arnold S. Monto reports a grant from NIH/NIAID, support for travel from the International Society for Influenza and other Respiratory Diseases, and participation on an advisory board for FDA, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Jay S. Steingrub reports a grant from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. Jennifer G. Wilson reports grants from NHLBI, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by an increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain., Methods: To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multistate sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2-positive controls., Results: A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2-negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2-positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95% CI: -14% to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (-54% to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (15-71%) among adults aged 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls., Conclusions: During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. G. reports grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC-Abt Associates, CDC-Westat, and Janssen, and a leadership position as co-chair of the Infection Diseases and Immunizations Committee. J. S. S. reports a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A. D. reports grants from the NIH-PETAL Network, ACTIV-3b, ACTIV-4d, and GRAIL and consulting fees from Alung Technologies. M. E. P. reports a grant from the US Department of Defense and support for speaking at the 2022 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology. I. D. P. reports grants from NIH, Janssen, Regeneron, and Asahi Kasei Pharma. D. N. H. reports grants from NIH (ACTIV-4d and Host Tissue-Nectar Trial). M. N. G. reports a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); consulting fees for scientific advisory from Endpoint; support for attending an ATS Board of Executives Meeting; and participation in a Regeneron Data Safety and Monitoring Board (DSMB) for a monoclonal antibody trial. M. C. E. reports grants from NIH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and payment from Abbott Labs for attending/lecture at the ASPEN Annual Meeting and on an Abbott webinar on nutrition in patients with COVID019. A. A. G. reports grants from NIH, Department of Defense, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals. N. M. M. reports grants from the US CDC. E. T. M. reports grants from NIH and Merck and payment for lectures from the Michigan Infectious Diseases Society. K. W. G. reports grants from the Department of Defense and NIH support for ACTIV-4HT and Department of Defence support for Military Health System Research Symposium 2022 travel. J. H. K. is supported by grant 1K23AI137321-01A1 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. N. H. reports grants from Sanofi and Quidel. A. S. L. reports grants from the US CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund; consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche; and membership on the American Society of Virology governing council (unpaid). C. J. L. reports grants from NIH, Department of Defense, CDC, bioMerieux, Entegrion Inc, Endpoint Health, Astra Zeneca, and AbbVie; patents for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock issued to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; participation on DSMBs for clinical trials for Study Principal Investigators unrelated to the current work; and stock options in Bioscape Digital unrelated to the current work. C. G. G. reports grants from NIH, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Sanofi, and Syneos Health and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

Rationale: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but adherence remains inadequate. Objectives: To measure the process and clinical impacts of implementation of a science-based intervention to improve LPV adherence for patients with ARDS, in part by increased use of clinical decision support (CDS). Methods: We conducted a type III hybrid implementation/effectiveness pilot trial enrolling adult patients with ARDS admitted to three hospitals before and after the launch of a multimodal implementation intervention to increase the use of mechanical ventilation CDS and improve LPV adherence. The primary outcome was patients' percentage of time adherent to low tidal volume (⩽6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) ventilation (LTVV). Secondary outcomes included adherence to prescribed oxygenation settings, the use of the CDS tool's independent oxygenation and ventilation components, ventilator-free days, and mortality. Analyses employed multivariable regression to compare adjusted pre- versus postintervention outcomes after the exclusion of a postintervention wash-in period. A sensitivity analysis measured process outcomes' level and trend change postintervention using segmented regression. Results: The 446 included patients had a mean age of 60 years, and 43% were female. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar pre- versus postintervention. The adjusted proportion of adherent time increased postintervention for LTVV (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-14.5%) and prescribed oxygenation settings (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.2-16.5%), as did the probability patients spent ⩾90% of ventilated time on LTVV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.58; 95% CI, 1.64-4.10) and use of ventilation CDS (aOR, 41.3%; 95% CI, 35.9-46.7%) and oxygenation CDS (aOR, 54.3%; 95% CI, 50.9-57.7%). Ventilator-free days (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62) and 28-day mortality (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20) did not change significantly after intervention. Segmented regression analysis supported a causal relationship between the intervention and improved CDS usage but suggested trends before intervention rather than the studied intervention could explain increased LPV adherence after the intervention. Conclusions: In this pilot trial, a multimodal implementation intervention was associated with increased use of ventilator management CDS for patients with ARDS but was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes and may not have independently caused the observed postintervention improvements in LPV adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03984175).

Background: Coronavirus 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., Methods: Case-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 (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose 2) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines., Results: A total of 10 078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (interquartile range, 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-91) versus 82% (95% CI, 79-85) at ≥180 days (P < .001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, P < .001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, P < .001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) (91% to 87%, P = .005), and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, P < .001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed., Conclusions: In a period largely predating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of 2 mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. W. H. S. reports grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for this work, grants and consultant fees from Merck (for research on the surveillance of pneumococcal infections) and Gilead Sciences (for research on the surveillance of hepatitis C virus infections) outside this work. M. G. reports grant support from CDC (Ambulatory US Flu/COVID VE Network and Adult Inpatient Flu/COVID VE Network, HAIVEN), CDC-Abt Associates (Flu Vax Immunogenitiy RCT and RECVOERPROTECT COVID/Flu VE studies), CDC-Westat (VISION COVID Study), and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) (RSV Severity App Birth Cohort Study). A. A. G. reports grant support from CDC, National Institute of Health (NIH), Department of Defense (DoD), AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals. J. D. C. reports grants from the CDC, NIH (K23HL153584), and Department of Defense. N. M. reports grants from the CDC (funded two other multicenter COVID-related projects separate from this work through payments to my institution). T. M. reports a grant from CDC and fees from the Society of Hospital Medicine for a talk about managing patients with congestive heart failure. K. G. reports grants from the CDC and the received grant funding for participation in executive committee of COVID-19 therapeutics from the NIH (ACTIV-4HT NECTAR Trial). D. C. F. reports grant support from CDC, consultant fees from Cytovale, and membership on a Medpace Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). D. N. H. reports contracts from CDC, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI; funding for participation in the ACTIV4d - Host Tissue Trial), and Incyte Corporation (funding to enroll in RUCOVID-DEVENT) and membership on the SAFE EVICT Trial of VIT C in COVID-19 as DSMB chair. M. C. E. reports talks on nutrition in COVID pneumonia at the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) conference sponsored by Abbott Labs. M. N. G. reports grant support from CDC, NHLBI, NIH, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), travel support for American Thoracic Society board meeting, and membership on the Regeneron DSMB for monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19. N. J. reports grants from CDC, NIH/NHLBI/NINDS, and University of Washington Royalty Research Fund, and payment for expert testimony from the Washington Department of Health. I. D. P. reports grants from CDC, NIH, Intermountain Research & Medical Foundation, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and institutional fees from Asahi Kasei Pharma and from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. S. M. B. reports grants from CDC, NIH (for trials and other research activities related to COVID), and DoD (to study COVID); fees from Hamilton ventilators for chairing a DSMB; and personal fees from New York University for service on a DSMB. E. T. M. reports a grant from Merck outside the submitted work. A. M. reports grant support from CDC, NIH, NIAID, and membership on a DSMB for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A. K. reports grants from CDC, Gilead Sciences, Ely Lily, United Therapeutics, BOA-Medical, and 4D Medical and membership on the Guidelines Committee for Chest. C. L. H. reports grants from CDC, NIH, and the American Lung Association. A. D. reports a grant from the CDC and consulting fees from ALung Technologies (Steering Committee). J. W. reports grants from the CDC and NIH (ARREST Pneumonia Trial UH3HL141722, ACTIV3a and 3b trials, and ACTIV4a trial), and membership on the American Board of Internal Medicine Critical Care Medicine exam committee. S. Y. C. reports grants from CDC and Regeneron (for 6R88-COV-2040 trial) and consulting fees from PureTech Health (for COVID study) and Kiniska (for possible ARDS study). J. H. K. reports grant support from CDC and NIH (1K23 AI137321-01A1). A. S. L. reports grants from the CDC, NIH, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, consultant fees for antiviral drugs from Sanofi and fees from Roche for membership on a baloxavir trial steering committee. N. H. reports grants from CDC, NIH, Sanofi, and Quidel and honoraria for speaking at a continuing medical education event at American Academy of Pediatrics. C. G. G. reports consultant fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi and grants from Syneos Health, CDC, NIH, FDA, AHRQ, and Sanofi. T. R. reports grants from CDC and Abbvie Inc, consultant fees from Cytovale, Inc. and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc., membership on a Sanofi, Inc. DSMB, a voluntary role as the Immediate Past President of ASPEN and stock in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I. J. reports grants/contracts from the CDC, NIH, Quidel, and Sanofi. C. J. L. reports grants/contracts from CDC, NIH, DoD, bioMerieux, Endpoint Health, Entegrion, Inc., and AbbVie; a patent issued to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock, membership on a Study Principal Investigators DSMB for clinical trials unrelated to the current work, Executive Committee; Immediate Past President, Member, Board of Directors, Association for Clinical and Translational Science, and stock options in Bioscape Digita unrelated to the current work. W. B. S. reports a grant from the CDC and NIH (5K12HL133117-05). All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

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

Troponin I is frequently elevated in sepsis, but optimal clinical approaches to diagnosis and management of troponin I during sepsis are unclear., Objectives: We aimed to describe the variation in troponin I measurement and the cardiovascular diagnostic and therapeutic approach to elevated troponin I among critically ill adults with sepsis., Design Setting and Participants: Observational cohort study of the hospital-level variation in serial troponin I measurement, trending troponin I to peak, echocardiography, cardiac stress test, cardiac catheterization, antiplatelet agents, therapeutic anticoagulation, beta-blockers, and statins quantified using hospital median odds ratios-the median odds of receiving an intervention at randomly selected higher versus lower rate hospitals-derived from multivariable-adjusted random-effects logistic regression models with hospital site as the random effect. The Premier Healthcare Database was used. Patients were adults aged greater than 18 years admitted to the ICU with sepsis from 2016 to 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: The hospital-level median odds ratios of troponin I measurement as well as cardiovascular diagnostics and therapeutics., Results: Among 85,830 adults with sepsis, 53,058 (61.8%) had a troponin I measured, with a median odds ratio of troponin measurement across hospitals of 5.30 (95% CI, 4.98-5.67). Among 27,665 adults (32.2%) with sepsis and an elevated troponin I level, 84.8% had serial troponin I measurements, 66.0% had troponin trended to peak level, 66.7% had an echocardiogram, 4.1% had a cardiac stress test, 6.6% underwent cardiac catheterization, 48.3% received antiplatelet agents, 8.3% received therapeutic anticoagulation, 50.5% received beta-blockers, and 38.1% received statins. The median odds ratios between hospitals for cardiovascular diagnostics and therapeutics ranged from 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for use of beta-blockers to 7.58 (95% CI, 6.43-8.77) for use of therapeutic anticoagulation., Conclusions and Relevance: Both troponin I measurement and the approach to an elevated troponin I among critically ill adults with sepsis varied widely across hospitals consistent with disparate practice and care efficiency. Prospective studies are needed to guide an informed approach to troponin I measurement and cardiovascular evaluation in sepsis., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: Coronavirus 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., Methods: Booster-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., Results: A 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., Conclusions: Vaccine 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., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

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)., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Samuel M. Brown reports serving as the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) chair for Hamilton Ventilators outside the submitted work. Jonathan D. Casey reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DoD), outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang consulted for PureTech Health in 2020 and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and is a DSMB member for an investigator-initiated study at UCLA. James D. Chappell reports grants from NIH and DoD during the conduct of the study. Cristie Columbus reports support from Baylor University Medical Center for meeting attendance, an advisory role to the Dallas County Public Health Committee, and other interests as the Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Baylor University Medical Center and the Medical Director for Infection Prevention and Control/Healthcare epidemiology, outside the submitted work. David J. Douin reports grants received from NIH and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, outside the submitted work. Abhijit Duggal reports grants from NIH and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and participation on a Steering Committee for ALung technologies, outside the submitted work. Matthew C. Exline reports grants from NIH and Regeneron, as well as support from Abbott Labs and Medical Legal Expert Witness for sponsored talks, outside the submitted work. D. Clark Files reports personal consultant fees from Global Blood Therapeutics and is a DSMB member from Medpace, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from CDC-Abt Associates, CDC-Westat, and Janssen, and participates as co-chair on the Infection Diseases and Immunizations Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. Kevin W. Gibbs reports grants from NIH and DoD, and DoD funds for the Military Health System Research Symposium travel in 2022, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports grants from NHLBI and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), speaking at medicine grand rounds at New York Medical College, travel support for the American Thoracic Society (ATS) executive meeting and serving as ATS Chair Critical Care Assembly, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron, and participating on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports consultancy fees from Merck; grants from Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, and AHRQ outside the submitted work. David N. Hager reports grants from NHLBI outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports grants and nonfinancial support from Sanofi, and grants from Quidel outside the submitted work. Nicholas J. Johnson reports grants from NIH, DoD, University of Washington, and Medic One Foundation, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Ely Lilly, 4D Medical, Dompe Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline, and serves on the Guidelines committee for Chest, outside the submitted work. Jennie H. Kwon reports grants from NIH outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports personal fees from Sanofi and Roche and grants from the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports grants from Merck, Flu Lab, and NIH, outside the submitted work. Tresa McNeal reports grants from participating as a webinar invited panelist and a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Todd W. Rice reports grants from NIH and DoD, personal fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cytovale, Inc., and Sanofi, Inc., outside the submitted work. William B. Stubblefield reports grants from NIH outside the submitted work. Jennifer G. Wilson reports personal funds from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Board of Internal Medicine outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Objectives: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments., Setting: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States., Subjects: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs., Intervention: None., Measurements and Main Results: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures., Conclusions: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness., Competing Interests: Dr. Burns disclosed that the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCSS) paid for the statistical analyses. Dr. Lorens received funding from the CCCS. Drs. Lorens and Kerlin disclosed work for hire. Drs. Viglianti, Kohn, Peltan, and Schnapp received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Fox-Robichaud’s institution received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Hamilton Academic Hospitals. Dr. Mathews’ institution received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); he received funding from Roivant/Kinevant Sciences. Dr. Jain is supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) T32AG019134, the Pepper Scholar Award from Yale Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center (P30AG021342), NIA of the NIH GEMSSTAR Award (R03AG078942), Parker B. Francis Fellowship Award, and Yale Physician-Scientist Development Award. Drs. Akgun and Crothers disclosed government work. Dr. Gershengorn received funding from the American Thoracic Society (ATS), Gilead Sciences, and Southeastern Critical Care Summit. Dr. Martin’s institution received funding from BARDA; he received funding from Genetech. Dr. Stapleton disclosed that she is chair of DSMB for Altimmune and a member of the ATS Board of Directors 2019–2021 (elected to Chair the Critical Care Assembly which includes a position on the Board). Dr. Attia’s institution received funding from the NHBLI (NHLBI K23 HL129888 and R03 [pending]), the Centers for Aids Research, and Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study. Dr. Maddux’s institution received funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD096018) and the Francis Family Foundation. Dr. Bagshaw received funding from Baxter and Bioporto. Dr. Crothers’ institution received funding from the NIH and Veteran’s Affairs. Dr. Peltan’s institution received funding from Regeneron and Asahi Kasei Pharma; he received funding from the NIH (K23GM129661) and Janssen. Dr. Schnapp received funding from UptoDate and Elsevier. Dr. Kraft’s institution received funding from the NIH, the American Lung Association, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca Consulting; she received funding from Sanofi, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi Speaking, and UptoDate; she disclosed she is a cofounder and Chief Medical Officer of RaeSedo LLC. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Test-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., Methods: Adults 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., Results: 5811 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., Conclusions: Despite 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) disclosure form. Funding for this work was provided to all participating sites by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Samuel Brown reports grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DoD), participation as the DSMB chair for Hamilton Ventilators, and participation as a member of the DSMB for New York University COVID clinical trials. Jonathan Casey reports funding from NIH and DoD. Steven Chang reports consulting fees from La Jolla Pharmaceuticals, PureTech Health, and Kiniska Pharmaceuticals, payment/honoraria from La Jolla Pharmaceuticals, and participation on a DSMB for an investigator-initiated study conducted at UCLA. James Chappell reports grants and other support from NIH. Abhijit Duggal reports consulting fees from ALung technologies. Matthew Exline reports payment/honorariua from Abbott Lab for sponsored talks. D. Clark Files reports consulting fees from Cytovale and participation on a DSMB for Medpace. Anne Frosch reports grants from NIH. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC-Abt Associates, CDC-Westat, and Janssen, and a leadership role as co-chair of the Infectious Disease and Immunization Committee of the Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics. Kevin Gibbs reports funding from NIH/ National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) for the ACTIV-4HT NECTAR trial. Nicholas Mohr reports grants from the CDC (funded 2 other multicenter COVID-related projects separate from this work through payments to author’s institution). Adit Ginde reports grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals. Michelle Gong reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), consulting fees from Endpoint, a leadership role on the American Thoracic Society (ATS) executive committee and board as well as support from ATS for meeting travel expenses, and participation on a DSMB for Regeneron. Carlos Grijalva reports grants from NIH, CDC, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), AHRQ, Sanofi, and Syneos Health and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi. David Hager reports grants from NIH/NHLBI for the ACTIV-4HT NECTAR trial and Incyte Corporation and participation as a DSMB chair for the SAFE EVICT Trial of vitamin C in COVID-19. Jennifer Wilson reports grants from the CDC and NIH (ARREST Pneumonia Trial UH3HL141722, ACTIV3a and 3b trials, and ACTIV4a trial), and membership on the American Board of Internal Medicine Critical Care Medicine exam committee. Natasha Halasa reports grants from NIH, Quidel, and Sanofi and honoraria for speaking at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) conference. Nicholas Johnson reports grants from NIH/NHLBI/NINDS and the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund and payment for expert testimony for the Washington Department of Health. Akram Khan reports grants from United Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, and 4D Medical and a leadership role on the guidelines committee for Chest. Jennie Kwon reports grants from NIH/NIAID. Adam Lauring reports grants from CDC, NIH/NIAID, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund and consulting fees from Sanofi and Roche. Christopher Lindsell reports grants from NIH, DoD, CDC, bioMerieux, Entegrion Inc., Endpoint Health, and AbbVie, patents for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock, participation on DSMBs for clinical trials unrelated to the current work, a leadership role on the executive committee for the Board of Directors of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science, and stock options in Bioscape Digita. Emily Martin reports grants from Merck, CDC, and NIH and payment/honoraria from the Michigan Infectious Disease Society. Tresa McNeal reports payment/honoraria from the Society of Hospital Medicine. Ithan Peltan reports grants from NIH, Janssen, Regeneron, and Asahi Kasei Pharma. Todd Rice reports grants from AbbVie Inc., consulting fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cytovale, Inc., membership on a DSMB for Sanofi, Inc., a leadership role as immediate past president of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, and stock options in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Wesley Self reports receiving the primary funding for this project from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and research funding from Merck and Gilead Sciences. William Stubblefield reports grants from the NIH/NHLBI., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: During 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., Methods: Hospitalized 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., Results: Of 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., Conclusions: Approximately 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., (© 2022 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network † assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years § should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Samuel M. Brown reports personal fees from Hamilton Ventilators outside the submitted work. Jonathan D. Casey reports grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), outside the submitted work. Steven Y. Chang reports consulting for PureTech Health in 2020 and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and membership on the safety monitoring board (DSMB) for an investigator-initiated study at UCLA. James D. Chappell reports grants from NIH and DoD during the conduct of the study. David J. Douin reports grants received from NIH and National Institute of General Medical Sciences, outside the submitted work. Abhijit Duggal reports grants from NIH and participation on a steering committee for ALung technologies, outside the submitted work. Matthew C. Exline reports grants from the NIH and Regeneron, as well as support from Abbott Labs for sponsored talks, outside the submitted work. D. Clark Files reports personal consultant fees from Cytovale and membership on DSMB from Medpace, outside the submitted work. Anne P. Frosch reports grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Manjusha Gaglani reports grants from Abt Associates, Westat, Janssen, and participation as co-chair on the Infection Diseases and Immunizations Committee for the Texas Pediatric Society, outside the submitted work. Kevin W. Gibbs reports grants from NIH and DoD, and DoD funds for Military Health System Research Symposium travel in 2022, outside the submitted work. Adit A. Ginde reports grants from NIH, DoD, AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Michelle N. Gong reports grants from NIH, speaking at medicine grand rounds at New York Medical College, travel support for the American Thoracic Society executive meeting, DSMB membership fees from Regeneron, and participation on the scientific advisory panel for Endpoint, outside the submitted work. Carlos G. Grijalva reports consultancy fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi-Pasteur; grants from Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. David N. Hager grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Natasha Halasa reports grants and nonfinancial support from Sanofi, and grants from Quidel outside the submitted work. Nicholas J. Johnson reports grants from the NIH, DoD, University of Washington, and Medic One Foundation, outside the submitted work. Akram Khan reports grants from United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, Ely Lilly, 4D Medical, Dompe Pharmaceuticals, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Jennie H. Kwon reports grants from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), outside the submitted work. Adam S. Lauring reports personal fees from Sanofi and Roche and grants from NIAID, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, outside the submitted work. Emily T. Martin reports grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. Tresa McNeal reports participation as a webinar invited panelist and a Practice Management Committee member for Society of Hospital Medicine, outside the submitted work. Ithan D. Peltan reports grants from NIH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals and institutional support from Asahi Kasei Pharma and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. Todd W. Rice reports grants from Abbvie Inc, and personal fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Cytovale, Inc., and Sanofi, Inc., outside the submitted work. William B. Stubblefield reports grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Jennifer G. Wilson reports grants from NIH, and personal funds from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Board of Internal Medicine, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. G.: CDC: Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) US Flu/COVID VE Network, HAIVEN, Synergy studies; CDC-Abt: BSWH FluVax Trial and RECOVER-PROTECT Cohort Studies; CDC-Westat: BSWH VISION COVID-Flu VE Study; Janssen: BSWH Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Severity App Birth Cohort Study; Co-Chair of Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee—Texas Pediatric Society—Texas Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics. A. G.: National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense; Faron Pharmaceuticals; AbbVie; D Douin: NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Institutional Training Grant. J. C.: NIH and Department of Defense grants unrelated to this work. T. A. M.: Panelist for Society of Hospital Medicine Updates in Heart Failure; Board member for Scott & White Clinic Physicians Board of Directors. K. G.: NECTAR Executive Committee member ACTIV4-HT; D. C. F.: Cytovale consulting fees; Medpace Data Safety Monitoring Board. D. N. H.: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIHLBI) participant in the ACTIV4d-Host Tissue Trial; Chair DSMD—SAFE EVICT Trial of VIT C in COVID-19. M. N. G.: Grants from NHLBI and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Consulting fees for Endpoint for scientific advisory panel; Honoraria—Medicine Grand Rounds from Westchester Medical Center; Support for attending ATS Board of Directors meeting; Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Regeneron study and REPLENISH trial. N. J. J.: IH grants paid to University of Washington Royalty Research Fund; Department of Defense grants; Medic One Foundation grants; WA Department of Health expert testimony payment; DSMB for Opticyte, Inc.; Chair, ACEP Critical Care Section. I. P.: NIH grants; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals grant; Intermountain Research & Medical Foundation grant; Asahi Kasei Pharma grant; Janssen Pharmaceuticals grant. S. B.: NIH grants and Department of Defense grants; DSMB for Hamilton ventilators and NYU. E. T. M.: Merck grant. A. S. M.: NIH grant. A. K.: NIH grants; United Therapeutics grants; Eli Lily grants; Johnson & Johnson—BOA Medical—4DMedical research grants; rA. D.: Center PI for PETAL network through NHLBI grant; on steering committee for A Lung technologies. J. G. W.: NIH/NHLBI funding for ACTIV-3 and ACTIV-4 trials; American Board of Internal Medicine—member of Critical Care Exam Committee. S. Y. C.: Consulting fees for PureTech Health and Kiniska Pharmaceuticals; Honoraria for La Jolla. H. M. B.: CDC grant for HCP COVID vaccine effectiveness. J. H. K.: NIAID grant. M. C. E.: Abbott Labs honoraria for speaking on ASPEN on nutrition in critical illness from COVID. A. L.: grants from CDC, NIH, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund; consulting fees from Sanofi on antiviral drugs and for Roche on baloxavir trial steering committee. N. H.: grants from NIH, Quidel, and Sanofi; Honoraria for speaking at CME event at AAP. C. G. G.: grants from Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, Sanofi, CDC, AHRQ, NIH, and FDA; consulting fees from Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Pasteur. T. W. R.: grants from NIH, Department of Defense and AbbVie; consulting fees for Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Cytovale, Inc.; DSMB for Sanofi, Inc.; Immediate Past President—ASPEN; Stock in Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for consulting work. W. B. S.: NIH training grants. C. J. L.: grants from NIH, Department of Defense; CDC; bioMerieux; Entegrion, Inc.; Endpoint Health; AbbVie; Patents for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock issued to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; DSMBs for clinical trials for Study Principal Investigators; Association for Clinical and Translational Science (Executive Committee, Immediate Past President, and Board of Directors); stock options in Bioscape Digita. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

Introduction: We describe a protocol for FIRE CORAL, an observational cohort study that examines the recovery from COVID-19 disease following acute hospitalization with an emphasis on functional, imaging, and respiratory evaluation., Methods and Analysis: FIRE CORAL is a multicenter prospective cohort study of participants recovering from COVID-19 disease with in-person follow-up for functional and pulmonary phenotyping conducted by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. FIRE CORAL will include a subset of participants enrolled in Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology of PETAL COVID-19 Observational Study (BLUE CORAL), an NHLBI-funded prospective cohort study describing the clinical characteristics, treatments, biology, and outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across the PETAL Network. FIRE CORAL consists of a battery of in-person assessments objectively measuring pulmonary function, abnormalities on lung imaging, physical functional status, and biospecimen analyses. Participants will attend and perform initial in-person testing at 3 to 9 months after hospitalization. The primary objective of the study is to determine the feasibility of longitudinal assessments investigating multiple domains of recovery from COVID-19. Secondarily, we will perform descriptive statistics, including the prevalence and characterization of abnormalities on pulmonary function, chest imaging, and functional status. We will also identify potential clinical and biologic factors that predict recovery or the occurrence of persistent impairment of pulmonary function, chest imaging, and functional status., Ethics and Dissemination: FIRE CORAL is approved via the Vanderbilt University central institutional review board (IRB) and via reliance agreement with the site IRBs. Results will be disseminated via the writing group for the protocol committee and reviewed by the PETAL Network publications committee prior to publication. Data obtained via the study will subsequently be made publicly available via NHLBI's biorepository., Strengths and Limitations of the Study: Strengths: First US-based multicenter cohort of pulmonary and functional outcomes in patients previously hospitalized for COVID-19 infection Longitudinal biospecimen measurement allowing for biologic phenotyping of abnormalities Geographically diverse cohort allowing for a more generalizable understanding of post-COVID pulmonary sequela Limitations: Selected cohort given proximity to a participating center Small cohort which may be underpowered to identify small changes in pulmonary function., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The study objective was to evaluate 2- and 3-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization among adult solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients., Methods: We conducted a 21-site case-control analysis of 10 425 adults hospitalized in March to December 2021. Cases were hospitalized with COVID-19; controls were hospitalized for an alternative diagnosis (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-negative). Participants were classified as follows: SOT recipient (n = 440), other immunocompromising condition (n = 1684), or immunocompetent (n = 8301). The VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was calculated as 1-adjusted odds ratio of prior vaccination among cases compared with controls., Results: Among SOT recipients, VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], -19% to 58%) for 2 doses and 77% (95% CI, 48% to 90%) for 3 doses. Among patients with other immunocompromising conditions, VE was 72% (95% CI, 64% to 79%) for 2 doses and 92% (95% CI, 85% to 95%) for 3 doses. Among immunocompetent patients, VE was 88% (95% CI, 87% to 90%) for 2 doses and 96% (95% CI, 83% to 99%) for 3 doses., Conclusions: Effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was lower for SOT recipients than immunocompetent adults and those with other immunocompromising conditions. Among SOT recipients, vaccination with 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine led to substantially greater protection than 2 doses., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. J. H. K. reports grant support from National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (1K23 AI137321-01A1). M. G. reports grant support from CDC, CDC-Abt, CDC-Westat, and Janssen and a role as the Co-Chair of the Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee, Texas Pediatric Society, Texas Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). H. K. T. reports a grant from CDC. A. A. G. reports grant support from CDC, NIH, US Department of Defense (DOD), AbbVie, and Faron Pharmaceuticals. T. M. reports payments as a panelist for the Society of Hospital Medicine Updates in Heart Failure (August 25, 2021) and as a board member of the Scott & White Clinic Physicians Board of Directors. D. J. D. reports grant support from NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM135169). J. D. C. reports grants from the NIH and DOD. K. W. G. reports grant support as a NECTAR Executive Committee member ACTIV-4HT. D. C. F. reports consultant fees from Cytovale and membership on a Medpace Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). D. N. H. reports a contract from CDC and grant support from National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) for participation in the ACTIV4d-Host Tissue Trial. M. C. E. reports talks on nutrition in COVID pneumonia at ASPEN conference sponsored by Abbott Laboratories. M. N. G. reports grant support from the CDC, funding from NHLBI and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and fees from Endpoint for participating on a scientific advisory panel, payment for Medicine Grand Rounds at Westchester Medical Center, travel support for attending the ATS Board of Directors meeting, and participation on a DSMB for Regeneron and REPLINISH trial. N. J. J. reports grants from the NIH, DOD, and Medic One Foundation, payment for expert testimony from the Washington Department of Health, participation on DSMBs for Opticyte Inc., Multi-Center, Randomized Control Trial to Study the Effectiveness of Hyperbaric Oxygen for COVID-19 patients with Moderate to Severe Hypoxemia (NCT04619719), and Remote Ischemic Conditioning to Enhance Resuscitation (RICE) Pilot (NCT04265807), and participation as Chair of the ACEP Critical Care Section. I. D. P. reports grants from the CDC, NIH, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Intermountain Research & Medical Foundation, institutional fees from Asahi Kasei Pharma and from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. S. M. B. reports grants from the CDC, NIH, and DOD, fees from Hamilton ventilators for chairing a DSMB, and personal fees from New York University for service on a DSMB. E. T. M. reports a grant from Merck outside the submitted work. A. K. reports grants from the NIH, Ely Lily, United Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson, BOA Medical, and 4D Medical. A. D. reports funding as the Center PI for PETAL network through NHLBI grant and for participation on a steering committee for ALung technologies. J. G. W. reports grant support from NIH/NHLBI for ACTIV-3 and ACTIV-4 trials and membership on the American Board of Internal Medicine Critical Care Exam Committee. S. Y. C. reports payment as a speaker for La Jolla Pharmaceuticals and consultant fees for PureTech Health and Kiniska Pharmaceuticals. H. M. B. reports grants from the CDC. A. S. L. reports grants from the CDC, NIH, and Burroughs Wellcome Fund, consultant fees from Sanofi, and fees from Roche for membership on a trial steering committee. N. H. reports grants from the CDC, NIH, Sanofi, and Quidel and honoraria for speaking at Continuing Medical Education event at AAP. J. D. C. reports grant support from the CDC. C. G. G. reports consultant fees from Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi-Pasteur and grants from Campbell Alliance/Syneos Health, CDC, NIH, US Food and Drug Administration, AHRQ, and Sanofi. T. W. R. reports grants from the NIH, DOD, and AbbVie, personal fees from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals as the Director of Medical Affairs, consultant fees from Cytovale, Inc., personal fees from Sanofi, Inc. for serving as a DSMB board member, a role as the Immediate Past President of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), and stock from Cumberland Pharmaceuticals for consulting work. C J. L. reports grants/contracts from the CDC, NIH, DOD, bioMerieux, Endpoint LLC, Entegrion, Inc., and AbbVie, a patent issued to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center for risk stratification in sepsis and septic shock, participation on DSMBS for Study Principal Investigators, roles on the Executive Committee, Immediate Past President, Member, Board of Directors for the Association of Clinical and Translational Science, and stock options in Bioscape Digita. W. H. S. reports grant funding from the CDC for this work. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Computer-aided decision tools may speed recognition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and promote consistent, timely treatment using lung-protective ventilation (LPV). This study evaluated implementation and service (process) outcomes with deployment and use of a clinical decision support (CDS) synchronous alert tool associated with existing computerized ventilator protocols and targeted patients with possible ARDS not receiving LPV., Materials and Methods: We performed an explanatory mixed methods study from December 2019 to November 2020 to evaluate CDS alert implementation outcomes across 13 intensive care units (ICU) in an integrated healthcare system with >4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We utilized quantitative methods to measure service outcomes including CDS alert tool utilization, accuracy, and implementation effectiveness. Attitudes regarding the appropriateness and acceptability of the CDS tool were assessed via an electronic field survey of physicians and advanced practice providers., Results: Thirty-eight percent of study encounters had at least one episode of LPV nonadherence. Addition of LPV treatment detection logic prevented an estimated 1812 alert messages (41%) over use of disease detection logic alone. Forty-eight percent of alert recommendations were implemented within 2 h. Alert accuracy was estimated at 63% when compared to gold standard ARDS adjudication, with sensitivity of 85% and positive predictive value of 62%. Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents observed one or more benefits associated with the alert., Conclusion: Introduction of a CDS alert tool based upon ARDS risk factors and integrated with computerized ventilator protocol instructions increased visibility to gaps in LPV use and promoted increased adherence to LPV., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Background: High-quality leadership improves resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), but experienced resuscitation leaders are unavailable in many settings., Research Question: Does real-time telemedical intensivist consultation improve resuscitation quality for IHCA?, Study Design and Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, standardized high-fidelity simulations of IHCA conducted between February 2017 and September 2018 on inpatient medicine and surgery units at seven hospitals were assigned randomly to consultation (intervention) or simulated observation (control) by a critical care physician via telemedicine. The primary outcome was the fraction of time without chest compressions (ie, no-flow fraction) during an approximately 4- to 6-min analysis window beginning with telemedicine activation. Secondary outcomes included other measures of chest compression quality, defibrillation and medication timing, resuscitation protocol adherence, nontechnical team performance, and participants' experience during resuscitation participation., Results: No-flow fraction did not differ between the 36 intervention group (0.22 ± 0.13) and the 35 control group (0.19 ± 0.10) resuscitation simulations included in the intention-to-treat analysis (P = .41). The etiology of the simulated cardiac arrest was identified more often during evaluable resuscitations supported by a telemedical intensivist consultant (22/32 [69%]) compared with control resuscitations (10/34 [29%]; P = .001), but other measures of resuscitation quality, resuscitation team performance, and participant experience did not differ between intervention groups. Problems with audio quality or the telemedicine connection affected 14 intervention group resuscitations (39%)., Interpretation: Consultation by a telemedical intensivist physician did not improve resuscitation quality during simulated ward-based IHCA., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03000829; URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)