Development of a Definition of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

JAMA · 2023 · 831 citations

• Medicine
• Virology
• Pathology

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with persistent, relapsing, or new symptoms or other health effects occurring after acute infection, termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), also known as long COVID. Characterizing PASC requires analysis of prospectively and uniformly collected data from diverse uninfected and infected individuals. Objective: To develop a definition of PASC using self-reported symptoms and describe PASC frequencies across cohorts, vaccination status, and number of infections. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective observational cohort study of adults with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection at 85 enrolling sites (hospitals, health centers, community organizations) located in 33 states plus Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. Participants who were enrolled in the RECOVER adult cohort before April 10, 2023, completed a symptom survey 6 months or more after acute symptom onset or test date. Selection included population-based, volunteer, and convenience sampling. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: PASC and 44 participant-reported symptoms (with severity thresholds). Results: A total of 9764 participants (89% SARS-CoV-2 infected; 71% female; 16% Hispanic/Latino; 15% non-Hispanic Black; median age, 47 years [IQR, 35-60]) met selection criteria. Adjusted odds ratios were 1.5 or greater (infected vs uninfected participants) for 37 symptoms. Symptoms contributing to PASC score included postexertional malaise, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, palpitations, changes in sexual desire or capacity, loss of or change in smell or taste, thirst, chronic cough, chest pain, and abnormal movements. Among 2231 participants first infected on or after December 1, 2021, and enrolled within 30 days of infection, 224 (10% [95% CI, 8.8%-11%]) were PASC positive at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: A definition of PASC was developed based on symptoms in a prospective cohort study. As a first step to providing a framework for other investigations, iterative refinement that further incorporates other clinical features is needed to support actionable definitions of PASC.

A prospective study of long-term outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without neurological complications

Journal of the Neurological Sciences · 2021 · 198 citations

• Medicine
• Pediatrics
• Intensive care medicine

Effect of Antithrombotic Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Clinically Stable Symptomatic COVID-19

JAMA · 2021 · 263 citations

• Medicine
• Internal medicine

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients

JAMA Internal Medicine · 2021 · 91 citations

• Medicine
• Virology
• Emergency medicine

Importance: There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants: CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions: A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results: Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

Nature Communications · 2021 · 292 citations

• Medicine
• Internal medicine
• Pathology

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

Dominance of Alpha and Iota variants in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections in New York City

Journal of Clinical Investigation · 2021 · 54 citations

• Medicine
• Biology
• Virology

The efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is high, but breakthrough infections still occur. We compared the SARS-CoV-2 genomes of 76 breakthrough cases after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or JNJ-78436735 (Janssen) to unvaccinated controls (February-April 2021) in metropolitan New York, including their phylogenetic relationship, distribution of variants, and full spike mutation profiles. The median age of patients in the study was 48 years; 7 required hospitalization and 1 died. Most breakthrough infections (57/76) occurred with B.1.1.7 (Alpha) or B.1.526 (Iota). Among the 7 hospitalized cases, 4 were infected with B.1.1.7, including 1 death. Both unmatched and matched statistical analyses considering age, sex, vaccine type, and study month as covariates supported the null hypothesis of equal variant distributions between vaccinated and unvaccinated in χ2 and McNemar tests (P > 0.1), highlighting a high vaccine efficacy against B.1.1.7 and B.1.526. There was no clear association among breakthroughs between type of vaccine received and variant. In the vaccinated group, spike mutations in the N-terminal domain and receptor-binding domain that have been associated with immune evasion were overrepresented. The evolving dynamic of SARS-CoV-2 variants requires broad genomic analyses of breakthrough infections to provide real-life information on immune escape mediated by circulating variants and their spike mutations.

Effect of Default Options in Advance Directives on Hospital-Free Days and Care Choices Among Seriously Ill Patients

JAMA Network Open · 2020 · 50 citations

• Medicine
• Emergency medicine
• Nursing

Importance: There is limited evidence regarding how patients make choices in advance directives (ADs) or whether these choices influence subsequent care. Objective: To examine whether default options in ADs influence care choices and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 515 patients who met criteria for having serious illness and agreed to participate. Patients were enrolled at 20 outpatient clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from February 2014 to April 2016 and had a median follow-up of 18 months. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 following ADs: (1) a comfort-promoting plan of care and nonreceipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (comfort AD), (2) a life-extending plan of care and receipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (life-extending AD), or (3) no choices were preselected (standard AD). Main Outcomes and Measures: This trial was powered to rule out a reduction in hospital-free days in the intervention groups. Secondary outcomes included choices in ADs for an overall comfort-oriented approach to care, choices to forgo 4 forms of life support, patients' quality of life, decision conflict, place of death, admissions to hospitals and intensive care units, and costs of inpatient care. Results: Among 515 patients randomized, 10 withdrew consent and 13 were later found to be ineligible, leaving 492 (95.5%) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) sample (median [interquartile range] age, 63 [56-70] years; 279 [56.7%] men; 122 [24.8%] black; 363 [73.8%] with cancer). Of these, 264 (53.7%) returned legally valid ADs and were debriefed about their assigned intervention. Among these, patients completing comfort ADs were more likely to choose comfort care (54 of 85 [63.5%]) than those returning standard ADs (45 of 91 [49.5%]) or life-extending ADs (33 of 88 [37.5%]) (P = .001). Among 492 patients in the mITT sample, 57 of 168 patients [33.9%] who completed the comfort AD, 47 of 165 patients [28.5%] who completed the standard AD, and 35 of 159 patients [22.0%] who completed the life-extending AD chose comfort care (P = .02), with patients not returning ADs coded as not selecting comfort care. In mITT analyses, median (interquartile range) hospital-free days among 168 patients assigned to comfort ADs and 159 patients assigned to life-extending default ADs were each noninferior to those among 165 patients assigned to standard ADs (standard AD: 486 [306-717] days; comfort AD: 554 [296-833] days; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; P < .001; life-extending AD: 550 [325-783] days; rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P < .001). There were no differences among groups in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, default options in ADs altered the choices seriously ill patients made regarding their future care without changing clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017548.

Assessing The Effectiveness Of Peer Comparisons As A Way To Improve Health Care Quality

Health Affairs · 2020 · 41 citations

• Medicine
• Family medicine
• Nursing

Policy makers are increasingly using performance feedback that compares physicians to their peers as part of payment policy reforms. However, it is not known whether peer comparisons can improve broad outcomes, beyond changing specific individual behaviors such as reducing inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Hawaii to examine the impact of providing peer comparisons feedback on the quality of care to primary care providers in the setting of a shift from fee-for-service to population-based payment. Over 74,000 patients and eighty-eight primary care providers across sixty-three sites were included over a period of nine months in 2016. Patients in the peer comparisons intervention group experienced a 3.1-percentage-point increase in quality scores compared to the control group-whose members received individual feedback only. This result underscores the effectiveness of peer comparisons as a way to improve health care quality, and it supports Medicare's decisions to provide comparative feedback as part of recently implemented primary care and specialty payment reform programs.

A Prospective Study of Neurologic Disorders in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in New York City

Neurology · 2020 · 305 citations

• Medicine
• Pediatrics
• Internal medicine

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and associated mortality of well-defined neurologic diagnoses among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we prospectively followed hospitalized severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients and recorded new neurologic disorders and hospital outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study of consecutive hospitalized adults in the New York City metropolitan area with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The prevalence of new neurologic disorders (as diagnosed by a neurologist) was recorded and in-hospital mortality and discharge disposition were compared between patients with COVID-19 with and without neurologic disorders. RESULTS: < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neurologic disorders were detected in 13.5% of patients with COVID-19 and were associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and decreased likelihood of discharge home. Many observed neurologic disorders may be sequelae of severe systemic illness.