Background: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of COVID-19. There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. Objective: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians and other health-care professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions:The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.

Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.

Although clinical trials and real-world studies have affirmed the effectiveness and safety of the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines, reports of breakthrough infections and persistent emergence of new variants highlight the need to vigilantly monitor the effectiveness of these vaccines. Here we compare the effectiveness of two full-length Spike protein-encoding mRNA vaccines from Moderna (mRNA-1273) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) in the Mayo Clinic Health System over time from January to July 2021, during which either the Alpha or Delta variant was highly prevalent. We defined cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals from Minnesota (n = 25,589 each) matched on age, sex, race, history of prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, and date of full vaccination. Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). In July, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization has remained high (mRNA-1273: 81%, 95% CI: 33-96.3%; BNT162b2: 75%, 95% CI: 24-93.9%), but effectiveness against infection was lower for both vaccines (mRNA-1273: 76%, 95% CI: 58-87%; BNT162b2: 42%, 95% CI: 13-62%), with a more pronounced reduction for BNT162b2. Notably, the Delta variant prevalence in Minnesota increased from 0.7% in May to over 70% in July whereas the Alpha variant prevalence decreased from 85% to 13% over the same time period. Comparing rates of infection between matched individuals fully vaccinated with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 across Mayo Clinic Health System sites in multiple states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa), mRNA-1273 conferred a two-fold risk reduction against breakthrough infection compared to BNT162b2 (IRR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39-0.64). In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (IRR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.24-0.62). Our observational study highlights that while both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines strongly protect against infection and severe disease, further evaluation of mechanisms underlying differences in their effectiveness such as dosing regimens and vaccine composition are warranted.

Background Since its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored including corticosteroids (CS); preliminary results of CS in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging, however, the role of CS is still controversial. Research Question What is the impact of CS in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and viral shedding in COVID-19 cases? Study Design and Methods We conducted a systematic review of literature on CS and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature until July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving CS with a comparative group. Results A total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 cases were identified. CS use was widely reported in mechanically ventilated (35.3%), ICU (51.3%) and severe COVID-19 cases (40%). CS showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 cases (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.51-0.83, P=0.0006), however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted amongst high- or low-dose CS regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose CS do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high- and low-dose CS regimens. Interpretation Our results show evidence of mortality benefit in severely-ill COVID-19 treated with CS. CS are widely used in COVID-19 cases worldwide and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for CS.

Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. Objective Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. Conclusions At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Background Two FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna), have demonstrated high efficacies in large Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. It is important to assess their effectiveness in a real-world setting. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 136,532 individuals in the Mayo Clinic health system (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin) with PCR testing data between December 1, 2020 and April 20, 2021. We compared clinical outcomes for a vaccinated cohort of 68,266 individuals who received at least one dose of either vaccine (n BNT162b2 = 51,795; n mRNA-1273 = 16,471) and an unvaccinated control cohort of 68,266 individuals propensity-matched based on relevant demographic, clinical, and geographic features. We estimated real-world vaccine effectiveness by comparing incidence rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and COVID-19 associated hospitalization and ICU admission starting 7 days after the second vaccine dose. Findings The real-world vaccine effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was 86.1% (95% CI: 82.4-89.1%) for BNT162b2 and 93.3% (95% CI: 85.7-97.4%) for mRNA-1273. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were 88.8% (95% CI: 75.5-95.7%) and 86.0% (95% CI: 71.6-93.9%) effective in preventing COVID-19 associated hospitalization. Both vaccines were 100% effective (95% CI BNT162b2 : 51.4-100%; 95% CI mRNA-1273 : 43.3-100%) in preventing COVID-19 associated ICU admission. Conclusions BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are both effective in a real-world setting and are associated with reduced rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and decreased burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system.

PET/CT is a useful adjunctive diagnostic tool in the evaluation of diagnostically challenging cases of IE, particularly in prosthetic valve endocarditis. It also has the potential to detect clinically relevant extracardiac foci of infection, malignancy, and other sources of inflammation leading to more appropriate treatment regimens and surgical intervention.

Clinical studies are ongoing to assess whether existing vaccines may afford protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection through trained immunity. In this exploratory study, we analyze immunization records from 137,037 individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests. We find that polio, Haemophilus influenzae type-B (HIB), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), Varicella, pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13), Geriatric Flu, and hepatitis A/hepatitis B (HepA–HepB) vaccines administered in the past 1, 2, and 5 years are associated with decreased SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, even after adjusting for geographic SARS-CoV-2 incidence and testing rates, demographics, comorbidities, and number of other vaccinations. Furthermore, age, race/ethnicity, and blood group stratified analyses reveal significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 rate among black individuals who have taken the PCV13 vaccine, with relative risk of 0.45 at the 5 year time horizon (n: 653, 95% CI (0.32, 0.64), p-value: 6.9e−05). Overall, this study identifies existing approved vaccines which can be promising candidates for pre-clinical research and Randomized Clinical Trials towards combating COVID-19.