Search

BackgroundAccurately assessing the regional activity of diseases such as COVID-19 is important in guiding public health interventions. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) to monitor outpatient clinical encounters may lead to the identification of emerging outbreaks. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate whether excess visits where the word “cough” was present in the EHR reason for visit, and hospitalizations with acute respiratory failure were more frequent from December 2019 to February 2020 compared with the preceding 5 years. MethodsA retrospective observational cohort was identified from a large US health system with 3 hospitals, over 180 clinics, and 2.5 million patient encounters annually. Data from patient encounters from July 1, 2014, to February 29, 2020, were included. Seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) time-series models were used to evaluate if the observed winter 2019/2020 rates were higher than the forecast 95% prediction intervals. The estimated excess number of visits and hospitalizations in winter 2019/2020 were calculated compared to previous seasons. ResultsThe percentage of patients presenting with an EHR reason for visit containing the word “cough” to clinics exceeded the 95% prediction interval the week of December 22, 2019, and was consistently above the 95% prediction interval all 10 weeks through the end of February 2020. Similar trends were noted for emergency department visits and hospitalizations starting December 22, 2019, where observed data exceeded the 95% prediction interval in 6 and 7 of the 10 weeks, respectively. The estimated excess over the 3-month 2019/2020 winter season, obtained by either subtracting the maximum or subtracting the average of the five previous seasons from the current season, was 1.6 or 2.0 excess visits for cough per 1000 outpatient visits, 11.0 or 19.2 excess visits for cough per 1000 emergency department visits, and 21.4 or 39.1 excess visits per 1000 hospitalizations with acute respiratory failure, respectively. The total numbers of excess cases above the 95% predicted forecast interval were 168 cases in the outpatient clinics, 56 cases for the emergency department, and 18 hospitalized with acute respiratory failure. ConclusionsA significantly higher number of patients with respiratory complaints and diseases starting in late December 2019 and continuing through February 2020 suggests community spread of SARS-CoV-2 prior to established clinical awareness and testing capabilities. This provides a case example of how health system analytics combined with EHR data can provide powerful and agile tools for identifying when future trends in patient populations are outside of the expected ranges.

Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent a crucial antiviral strategy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, but it is unclear whether combination mAbs offer a benefit over single-active mAb treatment. Amubarvimab and romlusevimab significantly reduced the risk of hospitalizations or death in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Certain SARS-CoV-2 variants are intrinsically resistant against romlusevimab, leading to only single-active mAb therapy with amubarvimab in these variants. We evaluated virologic outcomes in individuals treated with single- versus dual-active mAbs. Methods Participants were nonhospitalized adults at higher risk of clinical progression randomized to amubarvimab plus romlusevimab or placebo. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels and targeted S-gene next-generation sequencing was performed on anterior nasal samples. We compared viral load kinetics and resistance emergence between individuals treated with effective single- versus dual-active mAbs depending on the infecting variant. Results Study participants receiving single- or dual-active mAbs had similar demographics, baseline nasal viral load, symptom score, and symptom duration. Compared with single-active mAb treatment, treatment with dual-active mAbs led to faster viral load decline at study days 3 (P <.001) and 7 (P <.01). Treatment-emergent resistance mutations were more likely to be detected after amubarvimab plus romlusevimab treatment than with placebo (2.6% vs 0%; P <.001) and were more frequently detected in the setting of single-active compared with dual-active mAb treatment (7.3% vs 1.1%; P <.01). Single-active and dual-active mAb treatment resulted in similar decrease in rates of hospitalizations or death. Conclusions Compared with single-active mAb therapy, dual-active mAbs led to similar clinical outcomes but significantly faster viral load decline and a lower risk of emergent resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To mitigate the loss of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency use authorization was given to several anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of progressing to severe disease. Monoclonal antibodies used to treat SARS-CoV-2 target the spike protein of the virus and block its ability to enter and infect target cells. Monoclonal antibody therapy can thus accelerate the decline in viral load and lower hospitalization rates among high-risk patients with variants susceptible to mAb therapy. However, viral resistance has been observed, in some cases leading to a transient viral rebound that can be as large as 3–4 orders of magnitude. As mAbs represent a proven treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections, evaluation of treatment-emergent mAb resistance can help uncover underlying pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and may also help in the development of the next generation of mAb therapies. Although resistance can be expected, the large rebounds observed are much more difficult to explain. We hypothesize replenishment of target cells is necessary to generate the high transient viral rebound. Thus, we formulated two models with different mechanisms for target cell replenishment (homeostatic proliferation and return from an innate immune response antiviral state) and fit them to data from persons with SARS-CoV-2 treated with a mAb. We showed that both models can explain the emergence of resistant virus associated with high transient viral rebounds. We found that variations in the target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters have a strong impact on the magnitude or observability of the viral rebound associated with the emergence of resistant virus. Both variations in target cell supply rate and adaptive immunity parameters may explain why only some individuals develop observable transient resistant viral rebound. Our study highlights the conditions that can lead to resistance and subsequent viral rebound in mAb treatments during acute infection. Author summary: Monoclonal antibodies have been used as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2. However, viral evolution and development of variants has compromised the use of all currently authorized monoclonal antibodies for SARS-CoV-2. In some individuals treated with one such monoclonal antibody, bamlanivimab, transient nasal viral rebounds of 3–4 logs associated with resistant viral strains occur. To better understand the mechanisms underlying resistance emergence with high viral load rebounds, we developed two different models that incorporate drug sensitive and drug resistant virus as well as target cell replenishment and fit them to data. The models accurately capture the observed viral dynamics as well as the proportion of resistant virus for each studied individual with little variation in model parameters. In the models with best-fit parameters, bamlanivimab selects for resistance mutants that can expand to high levels due to target cell replenishment. The ultimate clearance of virus however depends on the development of adaptive immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pericoronary adipose tissue (PCAT) may influence plaque development through inflammatory mechanisms. We assessed PCAT density, as a measure of pericoronary inflammation, in relationship to coronary plaque among people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV [PWH]) and to a matched control population. Methods In this baseline analysis of 727 participants of the Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV (REPRIEVE) Mechanistic Substudy, we related computed tomography–derived PCAT density to presence and extent (Leaman score) of coronary artery disease (CAD), noncalcified plaque, coronary artery calcium (CAC), and vulnerable plaque features using multivariable logistic regression analyses. We further compared the PCAT density between PWH and age, sex, body mass index, CAC score, and statin use–matched controls from the community-based Framingham Heart Study (N = 464), adjusting for relevant clinical covariates. Results Among 727 REPRIEVE participants (age 50.8 ± 5.8 years; 83.6% [608/727] male), PCAT density was higher in those with (vs without) coronary plaque, noncalcified plaque, CAC >0, vulnerable plaque, and high CAD burden (Leaman score >5) (P <.001 for each comparison). PCAT density related to prevalent coronary plaque (adjusted odds ratio [per 10 HU]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–1.70; P <.001), adjusted for clinical cardiovascular risk factors, body mass index, and systemic immune/inflammatory biomarkers. Similarly, PCAT density related to CAC >0, noncalcified plaque, vulnerable plaque, and Leaman score >5 (all P ≤.002). PCAT density was greater among REPRIEVE participants versus Framingham Heart Study (−88.2 ± 0.5 HU versus −90.6 ± 0.4 HU; P <.001). Conclusions Among PWH in REPRIEVE, a large primary cardiovascular disease prevention cohort, increased PCAT density independently associated with prevalence and severity of coronary plaque, linking increased coronary inflammation to CAD in PWH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Camostat inhibits severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in vitro. We studied the safety and efficacy of camostat in ACTIV-2/A5401, a phase 2/3 platform trial of therapeutics for COVID-19 in nonhospitalized adults. Methods We conducted a phase 2 study in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 randomized to oral camostat for 7 days or a pooled placebo arm. Primary outcomes were time to improvement in COVID-19 symptoms through day 28, proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) from nasopharyngeal swabs through day 14, and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through day 28. Results Of 216 participants (109 randomized to camostat, 107 to placebo) who initiated study intervention, 45% reported ≤5 days of symptoms at study entry and 26% met the protocol definition of higher risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Median age was 37 years. Median time to symptom improvement was 9 days in both arms (P =.99). There were no significant differences in the proportion of participants with SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials. Study Design and Methods: We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion‐related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders. Results: The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic‐type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID‐19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43–1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre‐existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16–4.67). We did not observe any CCP‐attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID‐19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life‐threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion‐associated complications. Discussion: Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding variant-specific differences in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral kinetics may explain differences in transmission efficiency and provide insights on pathogenesis and prevention. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 kinetics from nasal swabs across multiple variants (Alpha, Delta, Epsilon, Gamma) in placebo recipients of the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial. Delta variant infection led to the highest maximum viral load and shortest time from symptom onset to viral load peak. There were no significant differences in time to viral clearance across the variants. Viral decline was biphasic with first- and second-phase decays having half-lives of 11 hours and 2.5 days, respectively, with differences among variants, especially in the second phase. These results suggest that while variant-specific differences in viral kinetics exist, post–peak viral load all variants appeared to be efficiently cleared by the host. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Time to symptom resolution measures were used in outpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment trials without prior validation. Methods ACTIV-2/A5401 trial participants completed a COVID-19 diary assessing 13 targeted symptoms and global experience (overall COVID-19 symptoms, return to pre–COVID-19 health) daily for 29 days. We evaluated concordance of time to sustained (2 days) resolution of all targeted symptoms (TSR) with resolution of overall symptoms and return to health in participants receiving placebo. Results The analysis included 77 high-risk and 81 standard-risk participants with overall median 6 days of symptoms at entry and median age 47 years, 50% female, 82% white, and 31% Hispanic/Latino. Correlation between TSR and resolution of overall symptoms was 0.80 and 0.68, and TSR and return to health, 0.66 and 0.57 for high- and standard-risk groups, respectively. Of the high- and standard-risk participants, 61% and 79%, respectively, achieved targeted symptom resolution, of which 47% and 43%, respectively, reported symptom recurrence. Requiring >2 days to define sustained resolution reduced the frequency of recurrences. Conclusions There was good internal consistency between TSR and COVID-19–specific global outcomes, supporting TSR as a trial end point. Requiring >2 days of symptom resolution better addresses natural symptom fluctuations but must be balanced against the potential influence of non-COVID-19 symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is little information regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA as a predictor for clinical outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Anterior nasal (AN) and plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA data from 2115 nonhospitalized adults who received monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or placebo in the ACTIV-2/A5401 trial were analyzed for associations with hospitalization or death. Results One hundred two participants were hospitalized or died through 28 days of follow-up. Higher day 0 (pretreatment) AN RNA was associated with increasing risk of hospitalization/death (risk ratio [RR], 1.24 per log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.04–1.49]) among placebo recipients, ranging from 3% to 16% for <2 to ≥6 log10 copies/mL. Although only 1% had quantifiable levels, there was a similar trend across day 0 plasma RNA categories. Higher day 3 AN RNA was associated with subsequent hospitalization/death among placebo recipients (RR, 1.42 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 1.00–2.03]), but not mAb recipients (RR, 1.02 per log10 copies/mL [95% CI, 0.68–1.56]). The proportion of treatment effect (reduction in hospitalizations/deaths after day 3 for mAb vs placebo) explained by day 3 AN RNA was 8%. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels are predictive of hospitalization/death in the natural history setting, but AN RNA levels may not be a reliable surrogate marker of mAb treatment effect in COVID-19 trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Prospective evaluations of long COVID in outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. We aimed to determine the frequency and predictors of long COVID after treatment with the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab in ACTIV-2/A5401. Methods Data were analyzed from participants who received bamlanivimab 700 mg in ACTIV-2 from October 2020 to February 2021. Long COVID was defined as the presence of self-assessed COVID symptoms at week 24. Self-assessed return to pre-COVID health was also examined. Associations were assessed by regression models. Results Among 506 participants, median age was 51 years. Half were female, 5% Black/African American, and 36% Hispanic/Latino. At 24 weeks, 18% reported long COVID and 15% had not returned to pre-COVID health. Smoking (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.41 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.34– 4.32]), female sex (aRR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.28–2.85]), non-Hispanic ethnicity (aRR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.19–3.13]), and presence of symptoms 22–28 days posttreatment (aRR, 2.70 [95% CI, 1.63–4.46]) were associated with long COVID, but nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA was not. Conclusions Long COVID occurred despite early, effective monoclonal antibody therapy and was associated with smoking, female sex, and non-Hispanic ethnicity, but not viral burden. The strong association between symptoms 22–28 days after treatment and long COVID suggests that processes of long COVID start early and may need early intervention. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most clinical trials evaluating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics include assessments of antiviral activity. In recently completed outpatient trials, changes in nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA levels from baseline were commonly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) with single imputation for results below assay lower limits of quantification (LLoQ). Analyzing changes in viral RNA levels with singly imputed values can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. In this article, using an illustrative example from the ACTIV-2 trial, we highlight potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods can be used when considering values

Adaptive platform trials were implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to rapidly evaluate therapeutics, including the placebo-controlled phase 2/3 ACTIV-2 trial, which studied 7 investigational agents with diverse routes of administration. For each agent, safety and efficacy outcomes were compared to a pooled placebo control group, which included participants who received a placebo for that agent or for other agents in concurrent evaluation. A 2-step randomization framework was implemented to facilitate this. Over the study duration, the pooled placebo design achieved a reduction in sample size of 6% versus a trial involving distinct placebo control groups for evaluating each agent. However, a 26% reduction was achieved during the period when multiple agents were in parallel phase 2 evaluation. We discuss some of the complexities implementing the pooled placebo design versus a design involving nonoverlapping control groups, with the aim of informing the design of future platform trials. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunocompromised individuals are disproportionately affected by severe coronavirus disease 2019, but immune compromise is heterogenous, and viral dynamics may vary by the degree of immunosuppression. In this study, we categorized ACTIV-2/A5401 participants based on the extent of immunocompromise into none, mild, moderate, and severe immunocompromise. Moderate/severe immunocompromise was associated with higher nasal viral load at enrollment (adjusted difference in means: 0.47 95% confidence interval,.12–.83 log10 copies/mL) and showed a trend toward higher cumulative nasal RNA levels and plasma viremia compared to nonimmunocompromised individuals. Immunosuppression leads to greater viral shedding and altered severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral decay kinetics. Clinical Trials Registration.  NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background SAB-185, a novel fully human IgG polyclonal immunoglobulin product, underwent phase 2 evaluation for nonhospitalized adults with mild-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Participants received intravenous SAB-185 3840 units/kg (low-dose) or placebo, or 10 240 units/kg (high-dose) or placebo. Primary outcome measures were nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA < lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) at study days 3, 7, and 14, time to symptomatic improvement, and safety through day 28. Results Two-hundred thirteen participants received low-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 107/106) and 215 high-dose SAB-185/placebo (n = 110/105). The proportions with SARS-CoV-2 RNA < LLOQ were higher for SAB-185 versus placebo at days 3 and 7 and similar at day 14, and significantly higher at day 7 for high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo only, relative risk 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.49). At day 3, SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels were lower with low-dose and high-dose SAB-185 versus placebo: differences in medians of −0.78 log10 copies/mL (P =.08) and −0.71 log10 copies/mL (P =.10), respectively. No difference was observed in time to symptom improvement: median 11/10 days (P =.24) for low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 8/10 days (P =.50) for high-dose SAB-185/placebo. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 5%/13% of low-dose SAB-185/placebo and 9%/12% of high-dose SAB-185/placebo. Conclusions SAB-185 was safe and generally well tolerated and demonstrated modest antiviral activity in predominantly low-risk nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration.  NCT04518410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]