IMPORTANCEAcutely 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 PARTICIPANTSThe 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/mm 3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 .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 MEASURESThe 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. RESULTSOn June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early terminationbecauseoflowerthananticipatedeventrates;atthattime,657symptomaticoutpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][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 RELEV...

BACKGROUND: The impact of antibiotic timing on sepsis outcomes remains controversial due to conflicting results from previous studies. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the association of door-to-antibiotic time with long-term mortality in ED patients with sepsis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included nontrauma adult ED patients with clinical sepsis admitted to four hospitals from 2013 to 2017. Only patients' first eligible encounter was included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the adjusted association between door-to-antibiotic time and 1-year mortality. Secondary analyses used alternative antibiotic timing measures (antibiotic initiation within 1 or 3 h and separate comparison of antibiotic exposure at each hour up to hour 6), alternative outcomes (hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality), and alternative statistical methods to mitigate indication bias. RESULTS: Among 10,811 eligible patients, median door-to-antibiotic time was 166 min (interquartile range, 115-230 min), and 1-year mortality was 19%. After adjustment, each additional hour from ED arrival to antibiotic initiation was associated with a 10% (95% CI, 5-14; P < .001) increased odds of 1-year mortality. The association remained linear when each 1-h interval of door-to-antibiotic time was independently compared with door-to-antibiotic time # 1 h and was similar for hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Mortality at 1 year was higher when door-to-antibiotic times were > 3 h vs # 3 h (adjusted OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.13-1.43) but not > 1 h vs # 1 h (adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.98-1.62). CONCLUSIONS: Delays in ED antibiotic initiation time are associated with clinically important increases in long-term, risk-adjusted sepsis mortality.

Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. Methods In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04501978 . Findings Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (MAb) are a promising therapy for early COVID-19, but effectiveness has not been confirmed in a real-world setting. Methods In this quasi-experimental pre-/post-implementation study, we estimated the effectiveness of MAb treatment within 7 days of symptom onset in high-risk ambulatory adults with COVID-19. The primary outcome was a composite of emergency department visit or hospitalization within 14 days of positive test. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and 14-day mortality. The average treatment effect in the treated for MAb therapy was estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting and the impact of MAb implementation using propensity-weighted interrupted time series analysis. Results Pre-implementation (July-November, 2020), 7404 qualifying patients were identified. Post-implementation (December 2020-January 2021), 594 patients received MAb treatment and 5536 did not. The primary outcome occurred in 75 (12.6%) MAb recipients, 1018 (18.4%) contemporaneous controls and 1525 (20.6%) historical controls. MAb treatment was associated with decreased likelihood of emergency care or hospitalization, odds ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.60-0.79). After implementation, the weighted probability that a given patient would require an emergency department visit or hospitalization decreased significantly (0.7% per day, 95% CI 0.03%-0.10%). Mortality was 0.2% (n=1) in the MAb group compared to 1.0% (n=71) and 1.0% (n=57) in pre- and post-implementation controls, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 7 (1.2%); 2 (0.3%) were considered serious. Conclusions MAb treatment of high-risk ambulatory patients with early COVID-19 was well-tolerated and likely effective at preventing the need for subsequent emergency department or hospital care.

Key Points Question Can machine-learning approaches achieve an objective pulmonary embolism risk score by analyzing temporal patient data to accurately inform computed tomographic imaging decisions? Findings In this multi-institutional diagnostic study of 3214 patients, a machine learning model was designed to achieve an accurate patient-specific risk score for pulmonary embolism diagnosis. The model was successfully evaluated in both multi-institutional inpatient and outpatient settings. Meaning Machine learning algorithms using retrospective temporal patient data appear to be a valuable and feasible tool for accurate computation of patient-specific risk score to better inform clinical decision-making for computed tomographic pulmonary embolism imaging.