Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial).DesignACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]).Setting94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants).ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionSOC.Measurements28-day mortality and recovery.ResultsAlthough outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages.LimitationUnmeasured confounding.ConclusionChanges in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Patient safety is a priority in health care systems. Nurses' safety competence along with environmental and personal factors plays a role in patient safety.The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among safety competency, structural empowerment, systems thinking, level of education, and certification.A cross-sectional exploratory design was used to collect data from nurses (n = 163) practicing in a large Midwestern hospital system.There were significant positive correlations between safety competency and ( a ) structural empowerment, ( b ) systems thinking, and ( c ) certification. Systems thinking explained 12.9% of the variance in the knowledge component of safety competency and 6.8% of the variance in the skill component of safety competency. Certification explained 2.4% of the variance in the skill component of safety competency.Understanding factors that affect safety competency supports the development of effective interventions that may improve safety.

BackgroundBaricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168.FindingsBetween Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012).InterpretationIn hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Liver injury may persist in patients with HBV receiving antiviral therapy who have ongoing transcription and translation. We sought to assess ongoing HBV transcription by serum HBV RNA, translation by serum hepatitis B core related antigen (HBcrAg), and their associations with hepatic HBsAg and HBcAg staining in patients coinfected with HBV and HIV.This is a cross-sectional study of 110 adults coinfected with HBV and HIV who underwent clinical assessment and liver biopsy. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed for HBsAg and HBcAg. Viral biomarkers included quantitative HBsAg, HBV RNA, and HBcrAg.Participants' median age was 49 years (male, 93%; Black, 51%; HBeAg+, 65%), with suppressed HBV DNA (79%) and undetectable HIV RNA (77%) on dually active antiretroviral therapy. Overall, HBV RNA and HBcrAg were quantifiable in 81% and 83%, respectively (96% and 100% in HBeAg+, respectively). HBcAg staining was detected in 60% and HBsAg in 79%. Higher HBV RNA was associated with higher HBcAg and HBsAg IHC grades (both p 0.0001). The HBsAg membranous staining pattern was significantly associated with higher HBV-RNA and HBcrAg levels.HBcAg and HBsAg IHC staining persisted despite viral suppression, and IHC grades and staining patterns correlated with markers of transcription (HBV RNA) and translation (HBcrAg). These data indicate that apparent HBV suppression is associated with residual transcription and translation that could contribute to liver pathology. Additional antiviral strategies directed to HBV protein expression may be useful to ameliorate liver injury.

Background Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods We evaluated the utility of CDC COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 U.S. Census data to determine demographic representation in the four stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at U.S. ACTT sites, with the respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results U.S. ACTT sites enrolled 3,509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic or Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with U.S. Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants ages 65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and U.S. Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions While surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, it is a better comparator than U.S. Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Background Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured populations in the US (Fig1). We hypothesized that those without insurance were more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 but were at higher risk for severe disease and mortality due to uncontrolled medical illness prior to hospitalization. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized in 81 hospitals in Dallas- Ft. Worth (DFW) area. All inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 from 3/1/2020 to 4/1/2021 were included to examine risk for hospitalization. Subset analysis included those hospitalized with COVID-19. Data presented is comparison between Medicaid and uninsured population as they were similar in age distribution (Fig 2). Results 198, 174 COVID-19 unique individuals were identified; 7.5% had Medicaid and 25.1% were uninsured. Among Medicaid, 29.6% were hospitalized vs. 25.8% of Medicaid vs. uninsured (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.26 (1.20, 1.33). Among the 71,778 (∼36%) hospitalized for COVID-19, comparing Medicaid vs. uninsured: 44.9 vs. 56.3% had ICU care; 51.4% vs. 80.2% had pneumonia, 41.1% vs. 67.5% had respiratory failure with higher odds of developing these outcomes in uninsured (see Table 1). Median duration of hospital stay was longer in uninsured than Medicaid ( see Table 2a) and mortality in the hospital was 7.4% vs. 7.9% among Medicaid vs. uninsured (p< 0.0001). Thirty-day readmission rates were lower for Medicaid vs. uninsured (Table 3). In the year prior to the COVID-19 hospitalizations, use of health care among the uninsured was lower compared to Medicaid patients for outpatient, inpatient, and ER visits (p< 0.0001 for all comparisons; see Table 2b). Conclusion Uninsured in North Texas had lower odds of hospitalization vs. Medicaid patients, likely due to younger age, but once hospitalized had higher risk for COVID pneumonia, ICU care, and respiratory failure. Median number of days was higher among uninsured but in-hospital mortality was higher among Medicaid population. Prior contact with healthcare system was lower among uninsured and 30-day readmissions were also lower, suggesting barriers accessing health care. Poorer outcomes among uninsured once hospitalized may be due to untreated co-morbidities (Fig 3). Expansion of Medicaid has the potential of ameliorating these disparities. Figure 3Conclusion graphic Disclosures Mamta K. Jain, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|GSK/ViiV: Grant/Research Support|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Regeneron: Grant/Research Support Mae Thamer, PhD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support Kavita Bhavan, MD, MPH, Gilead: Grant/Research Support.

Background Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. Methods In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. Findings From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). Interpretation When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. Funding US National Institutes of Health.

PURPOSE: To explore how early meaningful experiential learning in community settings impacted medical students’ application of systems thinking, their perceptions of systems navigation, and their professional identity as health system change agents. METHODS: Following an immersive Health Systems Science course, first-year medical students partnered with veterans or newly arrived refugee families and served as health system patient navigators embedded within primary care teams for a year. Across two cohorts, fifty-six students participated in the elective. Three voluntary focus groups were conducted each year for a total of six groups with 50 patient navigator students. Inductive content analysis of focus group transcripts was conducted. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis produced three major themes: program impact on students, student impact on patients, and student perceptions of the role of healthcare providers. Students reported a rich understanding of social determinants of health. By improving patient awareness of health and well-being, building capacity to understand medical issues, and increasing medication adherence through teaching, students recognized their impact on patient care. The importance of interprofessional collaboration with social workers also emerged and helped shape students’ understanding of how they as physicians are part of a coordinated team working toward better patient care. CONCLUSION: The Case Western Reserve University WR2 curriculum teaches students how to address complex determinants of health and how to consider their role in dynamic health systems. This study highlights rich themes that emerged from students as they recognized the context that creates health for both individuals and communities. It underscores the role of such experiences in reinforcing systems thinking and development of change agency, both contributing to their professional identity formation as physicians.

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

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

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

Background: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. Design: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. Setting: 114 centers in 10 countries. Participants: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. Measurements: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. Results: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. Limitations: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. Conclusion: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.