Background In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary. Methods In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support. Results We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P = 0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P = 0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support. Conclusions In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.)

Rationale: Accurate, early identification of patients at risk for developing acute lung injury (ALI) provides the opportunity to test and implement secondary prevention strategies. Objectives: To determine the frequency and outcome of ALI development in patients at risk and validate a lung injury prediction score (LIPS). Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational cohort study, predisposing conditions and risk modifiers predictive of ALI development were identified from routine clinical data available during initial evaluation. The discrimination of the model was assessed with area under receiver operating curve (AUC). The risk of death from ALI was determined after adjustment for severity of illness and predisposing conditions. Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-two hospitals enrolled 5,584 patients at risk. ALI developed a median of 2 (interquartile range 1-4) days after initial evaluation in 377 (6.8%; 148 ALI-only, 229 adult respiratory distress syndrome) patients. The frequency of ALI varied according to predisposing conditions (from 3% in pancreatitis to 26% after smoke inhalation). LIPS discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not with an AUC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.82). When adjusted for severity of illness and predisposing conditions, development of ALI increased the risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-5.7). Conclusions: ALI occurrence varies according to predisposing conditions and carries an independently poor prognosis. Using routinely available clinical data, LIPS identifies patients at high risk for ALI early in the course of their illness. This model will alert clinicians about the risk of ALI and facilitate testing and implementation of ALI prevention strategies. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00889772).

The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine has been identified as a potential therapy for septic shock.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine attenuates organ injury in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine vs placebo for adult patients with septic shock. Two hundred five patients were enrolled between February 9, 2018, and October 27, 2019, at 14 centers in the United States. Follow-up continued until November 26, 2019.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid (1500 mg), hydrocortisone (50 mg), and thiamine (100 mg) every 6 hours for 4 days (n = 103) or placebo in matching volumes at the same time points (n = 102). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0-24; 0 = best) between enrollment and 72 hours. Key secondary outcomes included kidney failure and 30-day mortality. Patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug were included in analyses. RESULTS Among 205 randomized patients (mean age, 68 [SD,15] years; 90 [44%] women), 200 (98%) received at least 1 dose of study drug, completed the trial, and were included in the analyses (101 with intervention and 99 with placebo group). Overall, there was no statistically significant interaction between time and treatment group with regard to SOFA score over the 72 hours after enrollment (mean SOFA score change from 9.1 to 4.4 [−4.7] points with intervention vs 9.2 to 5.1 [−4.1] points with placebo; adjusted mean difference, −0.8; 95% CI, −1.7 to 0.2; P = .12 for interaction). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failure (31.7% with intervention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, −0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or in 30-day mortality (34.7% vs 29.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2; P = .26). The most common serious adverse events were hyperglycemia (12 patients with intervention and 7 patients with placebo), hypernatremia (11 and 7 patients, respectively), and new hospital-acquired infection (13 and 12 patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn patients with septic shock, the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine, compared with placebo, did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SOFA score during the first 72 hours after enrollment. These data do not support routine use of this combination therapy for patients with septic shock.

The provision of procalcitonin assay results, along with instructions on their interpretation, to emergency department and hospital-based clinicians did not result in less use of antibiotics than did usual care among patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02130986 .).

Background The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting. Methods We conducted a test-negative case–control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19–like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose). Results The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely. Conclusions The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

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...

The combination of thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone has recently emerged as a potential adjunctive therapy to antibiotics, infectious source control, and supportive care for patients with sepsis and septic shock. In the present manuscript, we provide a comprehensive review of the pathophysiologic basis and supporting research for each element of the thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone drug combination in sepsis. In addition, we describe potential areas of synergy between these therapies and discuss the strengths/weaknesses of the two studies to date which have evaluated the drug combination in patients with severe infection. Finally, we describe the current state of current clinical practice as it relates to the thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone combination and present an overview of the randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center Ascorbic acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine in Sepsis (ACTS) trial and other planned/ongoing randomized clinical trials.

On May 14, 2021, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection.A test-negative design case-control study of mRNA COVID-19 VE is underway, with HCP being enrolled at 33 sites across 25 U.S. states; the planned interim analysis presented in this report includes data collected during January-March 2021.* A majority (75%) of enrolled HCP worked at acute care hospitals (including emergency departments), 25% worked in outpatient or specialty clinics, and <1% worked in long-term care facilities and urgent care * https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/hcp-early-phaseprotocol-508.pdf