Search

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of using respiratory frequencies up to 15 Hz during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFO) of adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit at a tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty adult patients receiving HFO at the discretion of their physicians for management of severe ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical management algorithm for HFO that minimized delivered tidal volumes by encouraging the use of the highest frequency that allowed acceptable clearance of carbon dioxide. This contrasts with the typical use of HFO in adults, in which frequencies generally do not exceed 6 Hz. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were 42 +/- 15 yrs old, weighed 83 +/- 25 kg, and had failed conventional lung-protective ventilation due to refractory hypoxia or respiratory acidosis and high plateau airway pressures. During HFO, 25 of 30 patients maintained acceptable gas exchange at frequencies > 6 Hz; 12 reached maximal frequencies of > or = 10 Hz. Among patients whose maximal frequencies exceeded 6 Hz, mean maximal frequency was 9.9 +/- 2.1 Hz, at a mean oscillation pressure amplitude of 81 +/- 11 cm H2O. At those settings, blood gases were pH 7.31 +/- 0.06, PaCO2 was 58 +/- 21 mm Hg, and PaO2 was 82 +/- 33 mm Hg. Survival to hospital discharge among this severely ill cohort was 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Most adults can maintain adequate gas exchange using HFO frequencies well above 5-6 Hz. Use of higher frequencies should minimize tidal volume and we speculate might thereby reduce ventilator-associated lung injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: a) Characterize how ventilator and patient variables affect tidal volume during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation; and b) measure tidal volumes in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Research laboratory and medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Test lung and patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Using a previously validated hot wire anemometer placed in series with a Sensormedics 3100B high-frequency ventilator, an endotracheal tube, and a test lung, tidal volume was measured at different combinations of frequency (4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 Hz), pressure amplitude (50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 cm H2O), mean airway pressure (20, 30, and 40 cm H2O), test lung compliance (10, 30, and 50 mL/cm H2O), endotracheal tube internal diameter (6, 7, and 8 mm), bias flow (20, 30, and 40 L/min), and inspiratory/expiratory ratio (1:2 and 1:1). In patients, tidal volume was measured at baseline ventilator settings and at baseline frequency +/-2 Hz and baseline pressure amplitude +/-10 cm H2O. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measured tidal volumes were 23-225 mL during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation of the test lung. A 2-Hz increase in frequency and a 10-cm H2O increase in pressure amplitude caused a 21.3% +/- 4.1% decrease and 21.4% +/- 3.4% increase in tidal volume, respectively. Decreasing endotracheal tube internal diameter from 8 mm to 7 mm and from 7 mm to 6 mm caused a 15.3% +/- 1.7% and 18.9% +/- 2.1% reduction in tidal volume, respectively. Increasing bias flow from 20 L/min to 30 L/min increased tidal volume by 11.2% +/- 3.9%. Further increases in bias flow, changes in compliance, and changes in mean airway pressure had little effect. Tidal volumes measured in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients were 44-210 mL. A 2-Hz increase in frequency was associated with a 23.1% +/- 6.3% decrease in tidal volume. In contrast to the test lung data, a 10-cm H2O increase in pressure amplitude resulted in only a 5.6% +/- 4.5% increase in tidal volume. CONCLUSIONS: Tidal volumes are not uniformly small during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. The primary determinant of tidal volume in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with the Sensormedics 3100B is frequency. Test lung findings suggest that endotracheal tube internal diameter is also an important determinant of tidal volume. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Assess the accuracy of four different methods of measuring tidal volume during simulated high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. DESIGN: In vitro study. SETTING: Research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Three differential pressure pneumotachometers, a modified Pitot tube, an ultrasound flowmeter, and an adult hot wire anemometer. INTERVENTIONS: Each device was placed in series with a Sensormedics 3100B high-frequency ventilator and an 8.0-mm endotracheal tube attached to a 48.9-L plethysmograph. Inspiratory/expiratory ratio was fixed at 1:1 and mean airway pressure at 10 cm H2O. Tidal volumes were calculated at each combination of frequency (f: 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 Hz) and pressure amplitude (DeltaP: 30, 60, 90 cm H2O) by digital integration of the sampled flow signals from each device and compared with those calculated from pressure changes within the plethysmograph. The protocol was repeated after incorporation of frequency-specific calibrations to the flow-measuring algorithm of each device. The hot wire anemometer was further evaluated at Fio2 of 1.0, 37 degrees C, 80% humidity, mean airway pressure of 20 cm H2O, and an inspiratory/expiratory ratio of 1:2. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Tidal volumes were 36-305 mL. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that each device exhibited systematic bias before frequency-specific adjustment. After frequency-specific adjustment of the flow-measuring algorithm, the two most accurate and precise devices were the Hans Rudolph pneumotachometer, which exhibited a mean error of 0.2% (95% confidence interval, -3.0% to 3.4%), and the hot wire anemometer, which had a mean error of -1.1% (95% confidence interval, -5.5% to 3.3%). The hot wire anemometer remained accurate at Fio2 1.0, 37 degrees C, 80% humidity, mean airway pressure of 20 cm H2O, and an inspiratory/expiratory ratio of 1:2. CONCLUSIONS: Tidal volume can be measured during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation using a variety of techniques. Frequency-specific calibration improves the accuracy and precision of tidal volume measurements. Hot wire anemometry exhibits stable performance characteristics across the range of temperature, humidity, Fio2, and inspiratory/expiratory ratios encountered clinically, has a small deadspace, is unaffected by mean airway pressure, and is therefore suitable for clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of a volume- and pressure-limited mechanical ventilation strategy improves clinical outcomes of patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS). However, the extent to which tidal volumes and inspiratory airway pressures should be reduced to optimize clinical outcomes is a controversial topic. This article addresses the question, "Is there a safe upper limit to inspiratory plateau pressure in patients with ALI/ARDS?" We reviewed data from animal models with and without preexisting lung injury, studies of normal human respiratory system mechanics, and the results of five clinical trials of lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies. We also present an original analysis of data from the largest of the five clinical trials. The available data from each of these assessments do not support the commonly held view that inspiratory plateau pressures of 30 to 35 cm H2O are safe. We could not identify a safe upper limit for plateau pressures in patients with ALI/ARDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was one of the first therapies to receive emergency use authorization for management of COVID-19. We assessed the effectiveness of CCP in a propensity-matched analysis, and whether the presence of antibodies in the recipient at the time of treatment or the titer of antibodies in the administered CCP influenced clinical effectiveness. In an inpatient population within a single large health system, a total of 290 CCP patients were matched to 290 controls. While CCP increased titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG titers post-CCP (p = <0.0001), no differences in 30-day survival were observed between CCP patients and controls in univariate and multivariate analyses. Survival at 30 days was numerically lower in recipients who were seronegative prior to CCP administration, compared to those with low titer and high titer anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG, respectively, but did not reach statistical significance (56% vs 82% vs 75%, p = 0.16). Patients who received 2 units of high-titer CCP had numerically better survival versus those who received fewer high-titer units, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). CCP did not improve 30-day survival compared to propensity matched controls. Together these data support that CCP therapy provides limited benefit to hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Iasella 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.)

Rationale: Early identification of ICU patients likely to benefit from specialist palliative care could reduce the time such patients spend in the ICU receiving care inconsistent with their goals., Objective: To evaluate the real-world effects of early screening for palliative care criteria in a medical ICU., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study in adults admitted to the ICU using a causal inference approach with instrumental variable analysis. The intervention consisted of screening ICU admissions for palliative care trigger conditions, and if present, offering specialist palliative care consultation which could be accepted/declined by the ICU. We evaluated specialist palliative care use in pre- and post-implementation cohorts from the year before/after screening implementation began (October 2022). In the post-implementation cohort, we compared use of specialist palliative care in those who received early screening versus not. We then estimated the effect of early screening on the primary outcome of days to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status or ICU discharge, with death without a DNR order placed at the 99 th percentile of the days to DNR or ICU discharge distribution. Secondary outcomes included: DNR order, ICU/hospital lengths of stay, hospice discharge, and mortality metrics. To address unmeasured confounding, we used two-stage least-squares instrumental variables analysis. The instrument, which predicts early screening, comprised weekend vs. weekday admission and number of patients meeting palliative care criteria on a patient's ICU days 1 and 2., Results: Amongst 1282 post-implementation admissions, 626 (45%) received early screening, and 398 (28%) received specialty palliative consultation. Early receipt of specialist palliative care was higher in patients who received early screening vs. not (17% vs 1% , p<0.001), and overall use of specialty palliative care was higher post- vs. pre-screening implementation (28 vs. 15%, p<0.001). In the post-implementation cohort, there were no statistically significant effects of early screening on the primary outcome of days to DNR or ICU discharge (15% relative increase, 95% CI [-11% to +48%]) or other secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Despite significantly increased specialty palliative care consultation there was no evidence that early screening for palliative care criteria affected time to DNR/ICU discharge or other secondary outcomes.

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.)

Rationale: Prone positioning for ⩾16 hours in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) improves survival. However, the optimal duration of proning is unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning duration on patients with moderate-to-severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS. Methods: Data were extracted from a five-hospital electronic medical record registry. Patients who were proned within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation were categorized as receiving extended (⩾24 h) versus standard (16-24 h) proning based on the first proning session length. We used a target trial emulation design to estimate the effect of extended versus standard proning on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes of ventilator liberation and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Analytically, we used inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox or Fine-Gray regression models. Results: A total of 314 patients were included; 234 received extended proning, and 80 received standard-duration proning. Patients who received extended proning were older, had greater comorbidity, were more often at an academic hospital, and had shorter time from admission to mechanical ventilation. After IPTW, characteristics were well balanced. Unadjusted 90-day mortality in the extended versus standard proning groups was 39% versus 58%. In doubly robust IPTW analyses, we found no significant effects of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.95 [0.51-1.77]), ventilator liberation (subdistribution hazard, 1.60 [0.97-2.64], or ICU discharge (subdistribution hazard, 1.31 [0.82-2.10]). Conclusions: Using target trial emulation, we found no significant effect of extended versus standard proning duration on mortality, ventilator liberation, or ICU discharge. However, given the imprecision of estimates, further study is justified.

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.)

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, some centers converted intermediate care units (IMCUs) to COVID-19 ICUs (IMCU/ICUs). In this study, we compared adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV) and outcomes for patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated in an IMCU/ICU versus preexisting medical ICUs (MICUs)., Design: Retrospective observational study using electronic medical record data., Setting: Two academic medical centers from March 2020 to September 2020 (period 1) and October 2020 to May 2021 (period 2), which capture the first two COVID-19 surges in this health system., Patients: Adults with COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who met ARDS oxygenation criteria (Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg or Spo2/Fio2 ≤ 315)., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: We defined LPV adherence as the percent of the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation that met a restrictive definition of LPV of, tidal volume/predicted body weight (Vt/PBW) less than or equal to 6.5 mL/kg and plateau pressure (Pplat) less than or equal to 30 cm H2o. In an expanded definition, we added that if Pplat is greater than 30 cm H2o, Vt/PBW had to be less than 6.0 mL/kg. Using the restricted definition, period 1 adherence was lower among 133 IMCU/ICU versus 199 MICU patients (92% [95% CI, 50-100] vs. 100% [86-100], p = 0.05). Period 2 adherence was similar between groups (100% [75-100] vs. 95% CI [65-100], p = 0.68). A similar pattern was observed using the expanded definition. For the full study period, the adjusted hazard of death at 90 days was lower in IMCU/ICU versus MICU patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.99]), whereas ventilator liberation by day 28 was similar between groups (adjusted subdistribution HR 1.09 [95% CI, 0.85-1.39])., Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated in an IMCU/ICU, LPV adherence was similar to, and observed survival better than those treated in preexisting MICUs. With adequate resources, protocols, and staffing, IMCUs provide an effective source of additional ICU capacity for patients with acute respiratory failure., Competing Interests: Dr. Brodie reports receiving research support from and consults for LivaNova. He has been on the medical advisory boards for Xenios, Medtronic, Inspira, and Cellenkos. He is the President-elect of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization and the Chair of the Board of the International ECMO Network, and he writes for UpToDate. Dr. Hochberg received funding from the National Institutes of Health-National Heart Blood and Lung Institute (K23HL169743). Dr. Case received funding from the NIH-NHBLI (T32HL007534). Dr. Sahetya received funding from the NIH-NHLBI (K23HL155507) and personal consulting fees from Getinge. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

The intensive care unit (ICU) was born from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In today's hospital systems, there remains a lot of overlap in the care missions of each location. The patient populations share many similarities and many of the same care, technology, and care protocols apply to patients in both units. As shown by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is immense value in maintaining protocols, processes, and staffing models for the safe care of ICU patients in the PACU when ICU demands exceed capacity., Competing Interests: Disclosures Drs M.R. Gaylor and K. Tyson have no disclosures. Dr D.N. Hager is funded by the CDC (IVY Network) and NIH (ACTIV-4d) via subcontracts with Vanderbilt University Medical Center., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Intermediate care (IC) is used for patients who do not require the human and technological support of the intensive care unit (ICU) yet require more care and monitoring than can be provided on general wards. Though prevalent in many countries, there is marked variability in models of organization and staffing, as well as monitoring and interventions provided. In this article, the authors will discuss the historical background of IC, review the impact of IC on ICU and IC patient outcomes, and highlight where future studies can shed light on how to optimize IC organization and outcomes., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr A.S. Case is funded by an National Institutes of Health (NIH) T32 Training Award (T32HL007534). Dr C.H. Hochberg is funded by an NIH K23 Award (K23Hl169743). Dr D.N. Hager is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (IVY Network) and NIH (ACTIV-4d) via subcontracts with Vanderbilt University Medical Center., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Malakoplakia is a rare inflammatory disorder believed to result from a defect in macrophage phagocytic function triggering a granulomatous reaction. It can present with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, or cutaneous manifestations in immunocompromised or, less commonly, immunocompetent hosts. We describe a case of renal malakoplakia in a young, otherwise healthy patient presenting with nephromegaly and sepsis following an E. coli urinary tract infection. We discuss diagnosis and management, including antibiotic selection and the decision to pursue nephrectomy. This case highlights the potential for kidney recovery with prolonged antibiotic therapy in conjunction with adjunct immunomodulatory therapies and source control., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aims: To elicit experiences of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in intermediate care units (IMCUs) in an academic medical centre in Baltimore, MD related to the challenges and intricacies of multimorbidity management to inform development of a multimorbidity symptom management toolkit., Design: Experience-based co-design., Methods: Between July and October 2021, patients aged 55 years and older with multimorbidity admitted to IMCUs at an academic medical centre in Baltimore, Maryland, USA were recruited and interviewed in person. Interdisciplinary healthcare professionals working in the IMCU were interviewed virtually. Participants were asked questions about their role in recognizing and treating symptoms, factors affecting the quality of life, symptom burden and trajectory over time, and strategies that have and have not worked for managing symptoms. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used for analysis., Results: Twenty-three interviews were conducted: 9 patients, 2 family caregivers, and 12 healthcare professionals. Patients' mean age was 67.5 (±6.5) years, over half (n = 5) were Black or Hispanic, and the average number of comorbidities was 3.67. Five major themes that affect symptom management emerged: (1) the patient-provider relationship; (2) open and honest communication; (3) accessibility of resources during hospitalization and at discharge; (4) caregiver support, training, and education; and (5) care coordination and follow-up care., Conclusion: Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different priorities for multimorbidity management. It is imperative to identify shared priorities and target holistic interventions that consider patient and caregiver experiences to improve outcomes., Implications for the Profession And/or Patient Care and Impact: This paper addresses the paucity of research related to the shared experience of disease trajectory and symptom management for people living with multimorbidity. We found that patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different care and communication priorities. Understanding differing priorities will help better design interventions to support symptom management so people with multimorbidity can have the best possible quality of life., Reporting Method: We have adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) guidelines in our reporting., Patient or Public Contribution: This study has been designed and implemented with patient and public involvement throughout the process, including community advisory board engagement in the project proposal phase and interview guide development, and member checking in the data collection and analysis phases. The method we chose, experience-based co-design, emphasizes the importance of engaging members of a community to act as experts in their own life challenges. In the coming phases of the study, the public will be involved in developing and testing a new intervention, informed by these qualitative interviews and co-design events, to support symptom management for people with multimorbidity., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved into numerous lineages with unique spike mutations and caused multiple epidemics domestically and globally. Although COVID-19 vaccines are available, new variants with the capacity for immune evasion continue to emerge. To understand and characterize the evolution of circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the National SARS-CoV-2 Strain Surveillance (NS3) program and has received thousands of SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens from across the nation as part of a genotype to phenotype characterization process. Focus reduction neutralization with various antisera was used to antigenically characterize 143 SARS-CoV-2 Delta, Mu and Omicron subvariants from selected clinical specimens received between May 2021 and February 2023, representing a total of 59 unique spike protein sequences. BA.4/5 subvariants BU.1, BQ.1.1, CR.1.1, CQ.2 and BA.4/5 + D420N + K444T; BA.2.75 subvariants BM.4.1.1, BA.2.75.2, CV.1; and recombinant Omicron variants XBF, XBB.1, XBB.1.5 showed the greatest escape from neutralizing antibodies when analyzed against post third-dose original monovalent vaccinee sera. Post fourth-dose bivalent vaccinee sera provided better protection against those subvariants, but substantial reductions in neutralization titers were still observed, especially among BA.4/5 subvariants with both an N-terminal domain (NTD) deletion and receptor binding domain (RBD) substitutions K444M + N460K and recombinant Omicron variants. This analysis demonstrated a framework for long-term systematic genotype to antigenic characterization of circulating and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants in the U.S., which is critical to assessing their potential impact on the effectiveness of current vaccines and antigen recommendations for future updates.

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.

Acute brain injury (ABI) and neuroinflammation is reported in COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It remains unclear if COVID-19 plays an independent role in development of ABI compared to those with non-COVID-19 ARDS. We aimed to evaluate if COVID-19 ARDS is associated with higher risk and specific patterns of ABI compared to non-COVID-19 ARDS. We conducted an age and sex matched case-control autopsy study at a tertiary academic center. Ten patients with COVID-19 ARDS were matched to 20 non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Baseline demographics were comparable between the two groups including severity of ARDS ( p = 0.3). The frequency of overall ABI (70 vs. 60%), infratentorial ABI (40 vs. 25%), ischemic infarct (40 vs. 25%), intracranial hemorrhage (30 vs. 35%), and hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (30 vs. 35%) was similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients, respectively ( p > 0.05). Intracapillary megakaryocytes were exclusively seen in 30% of COVID-19 patients. Overall, frequency and pattern of ABI in COVID-19 ARDS was comparable to non-COVID-19., Competing Interests: LZ was employed by Inova Health System. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Humayun, Zhang, Zaikos, Kannapadi, Suarez, Hager, Troncoso and Cho.)

Introduction: Sustainable approaches to support care coordination and symptom management needs of critically ill adults living with multimorbidity are needed to combat the challenges and complexity that multimorbidity presents. The study aims to test the feasibility of the Care cOORDInatioN And sympTom managEment (COORDINATE) intervention to improve health outcomes of adults living with multimorbidity., Methods and Analysis: A multicomponent nurse-driven intervention was developed using experience-based co-design and human-centred design. Inclusion criteria include (1) age 55 years and older, (2) admitted to an intermediate care unit, (3) presence of two or more chronic health conditions and (4) signed informed consent. Data collection will occur at baseline (time of recruitment predischarge) and 6 weeks and 3 months following hospital discharge. Outcome of interest from this feasibility study is to evaluate the financial, technical and logistic feasibility of a full-scale study including data collection and protocol adherence. Additionally, Cohen's d effect sizes for the change in outcomes over time will be computed to establish power calculations required for a full-scale study. The protocol was prepared in accordance with Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Given the success of this feasibility study, the potential for the COORDINATE intervention to decrease the symptom burden and improve participant quality of life among critically ill people with multimorbidity will be tested in a full-scale study, and findings will be actively disseminated., Trial Registration Number: NCT05985044., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been underused, but was widely adopted for COVID-19-associated ARDS early in the pandemic. Whether this successful implementation has been sustained over the first 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown. In this study, we characterized proning use in patients with COVID-19 ARDS from March 2020 to December 2022., Design: Multicenter retrospective observational study., Setting: Five-hospital health system in Maryland, USA., Patients: Adults with COVID-19 supported with invasive mechanical ventilation and with a P ao2 /F io2 ratio of less than or equal to 150 mm Hg while receiving F io2 of greater than or equal to 0.6 within 72 hours of intubation., Interventions: None., Measurements: We extracted demographic, clinical, and positioning data from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was the initiation of proning within 48 hours of meeting criteria. We compared proning use by year with univariate and multivariate relative risk (RR) regression. Additionally, we evaluated the association of treatment during a COVID-19 surge period and receipt of prone positioning., Main Results: We identified 656 qualifying patients; 341 from 2020, 224 from 2021, and 91 from 2022. More than half (53%) met severe ARDS criteria. Early proning occurred in 56.2% of patients in 2020, 56.7% in 2021, and 27.5% in 2022. This translated to a 51% reduction in use of prone positioning among patients treated in 2022 versus 2020 (RR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.72; p < 0.001). This reduction remained significant in adjusted models (adjusted RR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.82; p = 0.002). Treatment during COVID-19 surge periods was associated with a 7% increase in proning use (adjusted RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13; p = 0.01)., Conclusions: The use of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS is declining. Interventions to increase and sustain appropriate use of this evidence-based therapy are warranted., Competing Interests: Dr. Hochberg’s institution received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (F32HL160039, T32HL007534). Drs. Hochberg and Eakin received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Eakin’s institution received funding from the NHBLI. 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.)

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.

Background: Prone positioning was widely adopted for use in patients with ARDS from COVID-19. However, proning was also delivered in ways that differed from historical evidence and practice. In implementation research, these changes are referred to as adaptations, and they occur constantly as evidence-based interventions are used in real-world practice. Adaptations can alter the delivered intervention, impacting patient and implementation outcomes., Research Question: How have clinicians adapted prone positioning to COVID-19 ARDS, and what uncertainties remain regarding optimal proning use?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with ICU clinicians from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD, from February to July 2021. We interviewed physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), advanced practice providers (APPs), and physical therapists (PTs) involved with proning mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. We used thematic analysis of interviews to classify proning adaptations and clinician uncertainties about best practice for prone positioning., Results: Forty ICU clinicians (12 MDs, 4 APPs, 12 RNs, 7 RTs, and 5 PTs) were interviewed. Clinicians described several adaptations to the practice of prone positioning, including earlier proning initiation, extended duration of proning sessions, and less use of concomitant neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians expressed uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiation and duration of prone positioning. This uncertainty was viewed as a driver of practice variation. Although prescribers intended to use less deep sedation and paralysis in proned patients compared with historical evidence and practice, this raised concerns regarding patient comfort and safety amongst RNs and RTs., Interpretation: Prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 ARDS has been adapted from historically described practice. Understanding the impact of these adaptations on patient and implementation outcomes and addressing clinician uncertainties are priority areas for future research to optimize the use of prone positioning.

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.)

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.

Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022., Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension., Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo., Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

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.)

Aim: Describe the strategy, efficacy and preferred mechanisms of training used to rapidly upskill intermediate care nursing staff to provide critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Descriptive study., Methods: The strategy used from March through December 2020 to upskill nurses in an intermediate care unit to administer critical care upon rapid conversion of the intermediate care unit to an intensive care unit for coronavirus disease 2019 is described. Training and education included paired staffing models, interdisciplinary education, skills days and self-directed learning. Nurses engaged in this upskilling process were surveyed to evaluate their confidence in new critical care competencies and educational preferences., Results: Of 38 intermediate care nurses, 35 completed training and began independent intensive care practice. Nursing confidence in critical care competencies increased steadily. Nurses demonstrated the greatest preference for peer education models, particularly those incorporating the hospital's pre-existing medical intensive care nurses., Patient and Public Contributions: No patient or public contributions were made to this manuscript., (© 2022 The Authors. Nursing Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.)

Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Importance: Early observations suggested that COVID-19 pneumonia had a higher mortality rate than other causes of pneumonia., Objective: To compare outcomes between mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia due to COVID-19 (March 2020 to June 2021) and other etiologies (July 2016 to December 2019)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins Healthcare System among adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation in the first 2 weeks of hospitalization. Clinical, laboratory, and mechanical ventilation data were extracted from admission to hospital discharge or death., Exposures: Pneumonia due to COVID-19., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to liberation from mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, static respiratory system compliance, and ventilatory ratio. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, proportional hazards regression, and doubly robust regression were used in propensity score-matched sets to compare clinical outcomes., Results: Overall, 719 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 442 [61.5%] were male; 460 [64.0%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 253 [35.2%] were White) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and 1127 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [15.8] years; 586 [52.0%] were male; 459 [40.7%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 655 [58.1%] were White) with severe non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In unadjusted analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.41), longer time on mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), and lower compliance (32.0 vs 28.4 mL/kg PBW/cm H2O; P < .001) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In propensity score-matched analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were equally likely to die within 90 days as those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.35; P = .85), had similar respiratory system compliance (mean difference, 1.82 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI, -1.53 to 5.17 mL/cm H2O; P = .28) and ventilatory ratio (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.11; P = .52), but had lower rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had somewhat lower rates of being discharged from the hospital alive at 90 days (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01) than those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia; however, this was not statistically significant., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia had similar mortality rates as patients with other causes of severe pneumonia but longer times to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation use in COVID-19 pneumonia should follow the same evidence-based guidelines as for any pneumonia.

Rationale: The adoption of prone positioning for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been poor. However, in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS, proning has increased. Understanding the factors influencing this change is important for further expanding and sustaining the use of prone positioning in appropriate clinical settings. Objectives: To characterize factors influencing the implementation of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 40 intensive care unit (ICU) team members (physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists) working at two academic hospitals. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a widely used implementation science framework outlining important features of implementation, to structure the interview guide and thematic analysis of interviews. Results: ICU clinicians reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, proning was viewed as standard early therapy for COVID-19 ARDS rather than salvage therapy for refractory hypoxemia. By caring for large volumes of proned patients, clinicians gained increased comfort with proning and now view proning as a low-risk, high-benefit intervention. Within ICUs, adequate numbers of trained staff members, increased team agreement around proning, and the availability of specific equipment (e.g., to limit pressure injuries) facilitated greater proning use. Hospital-level supports included proning teams, centralized educational resources specific to the management of COVID-19 (including a recommendation for prone positioning), and an electronic medical record proning order. Important implementation processes included informal dissemination of best practices through on-the-job learning and team interactions during routine bedside care. Conclusions: The implementation of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS took place in the context of evolving clinician viewpoints and ICU team cultures. Proning was facilitated by hospital support and buy-in and leadership from bedside clinicians. The successful implementation of prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a model for the implementation of other evidence-based therapies in critical care.

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: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring mechanical ventilation., Design: Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Ruxolitinib in Participants With COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Who Require Mechanical Ventilation (RUXCOVID-DEVENT; NCT04377620)., Setting: Hospitals and community-based private or group practices in the United States (29 sites) and Russia (4 sites)., Patients: Eligible patients were greater than or equal to 12 years old, hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and mechanically ventilated with a Pa o2 /F io2 of less than or equal to 300 mm Hg within 6 hours of randomization., Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive twice-daily ruxolitinib 15 mg, ruxolitinib 5 mg, or placebo, each plus standard therapy., Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, was tested for each ruxolitinib group versus placebo using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and one-tailed significance test (significance threshold: p < 0.025); no type 1 error was allocated to secondary endpoints. Between May 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, 211 patients (age range, 24-87 yr) were randomized (ruxolitinib 15/5 mg, n = 77/87; placebo, n = 47). Acute respiratory distress syndrome was categorized as severe in 27% of patients (58/211) at randomization; 90% (190/211) received concomitant steroids. Day-28 mortality was 51% (39/77; 95% CI, 39-62%) for ruxolitinib 15 mg, 53% (45/85; 95% CI, 42-64%) for ruxolitinib 5 mg, and 70% (33/47; 95% CI, 55-83%) for placebo. Neither ruxolitinib 15 mg (odds ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.201-1.028]; one-sided p = 0.029) nor 5 mg (odds ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.171-1.023]; one-sided p = 0.028) significantly reduced 28-day mortality versus placebo. Numerical improvements with ruxolitinib 15 mg versus placebo were observed in secondary outcomes including ventilator-, ICU-, and vasopressor-free days. Rates of overall and serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across treatments., Conclusions: The observed reduction in 28-day mortality rate between ruxolitinib and placebo in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome was not statistically significant; however, the trial was underpowered owing to early termination., Competing Interests: Dr. Rein disclosed that she served as a consultant for AbbVie, Blueprint Medicines, Celgene, CTI BioPharma, and Novartis and as a site principal investigator on clinical trials involving ruxolitinib. Dr. Rein reports receiving research funding including salary support from Incyte Corporation for Ruxolitinib in Participants With COVID-19–Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Who Require Mechanical Ventilation (RUXCOVID-DEVENT). Dr. Calero reports receiving grants from Incyte Corporation. Dr. Lodhi reports receiving grants and personal fees from Incyte Corporation and Theravance and nonfinancial support from Incyte Corporation. Drs. Daniel, Schaub, and O’Hayer disclosed they are employees of and own stock in Incyte Corporation. Dr. Hager reports receiving a research grant and salary support from Incyte Corporation for the conduct of the RUXCOVID-DEVENT trial, past salary support from the Embedded Precision in Acute Care Trials (EMPACT) Precision Medicine Network for participation in EMPACT Network and from the Marcus Foundation for the conduct of the Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial, and other support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (via subcontract with Vanderbilt University Medical Center). Dr. Theodoropoulos received funding from Incyte Corporation for the RUXCOVID-DEVENT trial. 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.)