Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia—Reply

In Reply We thank Drs Mathew and Feldmann for their comments on the results of ACTIV-1

Clinical perspectives of emerging pathogens in bleeding disorders.

As a result of immunological and nucleic-acid screening of plasma donations for transfusion-transmissible viruses, and the incorporation of viral reduction processes during plasma fractionation, coagulation-factor concentrates (CFC) are now judged safe in terms of many known infectious agents, including hepatitis B and C viruses, HIV, and human T-cell lymphotropic virus. However, emerging pathogens could pose future threats, particularly those with blood-borne stages that are resistant to viral-inactivation steps in the manufacturing process, such as non-lipid-coated viruses. As outlined in this Review, better understanding of infectious diseases allows challenges from newly described agents of potential concern in the future to be anticipated, but the processes of zoonotic transmission and genetic selection or modification ensure that plasma-derived products will continue to be subject to infectious concerns. Manufacturers of plasma-derived CFC have addressed the issue of emerging infectious agents by developing recombinant products that limit the need for human plasma during production. Such recombinant products have extended the safety profile of their predecessors by ensuring that all reagents used for cell culture, purification steps, and stabilisation and storage buffers are completely independent of human plasma

Efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc in treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The patient's clinical status was assessed daily on an 8-point ordinal scale. We evaluated the totality of evidence on the efficacy of the 3 immunomodulators by considering all possible changes in the clinical status of each patient over time. We demonstrated that infliximab accelerated improvement and reduced deterioration of clinical status when added to standard of care. There was also evidence for the benefit of abatacept. There was no evidence for the benefit of cenicriviroc

Resource Utilization for COVID-19 Pneumonia in the ACTIV-1 Trial: A Secondary Data Analysis

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requires considerable healthcare resources. Research Objective Examine if a single dose of infliximab or abatacept, in addition to remdesivir and steroids, decreased resource utilization among participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Study Design and Methods Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines Immunomodulator (ACTIV-1 IM) master protocol was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial examining the potential benefit in time to recovery and mortality of immunomodulators infliximab, abatacept, and cenicriviroc. This observational study performs a secondary analysis of the infliximab, abatacept, and common placebo participants to examine resource utilization. Hospital days, intensive care unit days, days with supplemental oxygen, days with high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation, ventilator days, and days of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were each examined. Proportional odds models were used to compare days alive and free of resource use over 28 days between infliximab and placebo groups and between abatacept and placebo groups. Results Infliximab infusion, compared to placebo, was associated with greater odds of being alive and free of all interventions tested. Abatacept use was associated only with greater odds of days alive and free of hospitalization and supplemental oxygen. Interpretation Infliximab and abatacept use were associated with decreased use of healthcare resources over 28 days compared to placebo, but the absolute differences were small

A Probability Sample for Monitoring the HIV-infected Population in Care in the U.S. and in Selected States

Epidemiologic and clinical changes in the HIV epidemic over time have presented a challenge to public health surveillance to monitor behavioral and clinical factors that affect disease progression and HIV transmission. The Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) is a supplemental surveillance project designed to provide representative, population-based data on clinical status, care, outcomes, and behaviors of HIV-infected persons receiving care at the national level. We describe a three-stage probability sampling method that provides both nationally and state-level representative estimates. In stage-I, 20 states, which included 6 separately funded cities/counties, were selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. PPS sampling was also used in stage-II to select facilities for participation in each of the 26 funded areas. In stage-III, patients were randomly selected from sampled facilities in a manner that maximized the possibility of having overall equal selection probabilities for every patient in the state or city/county. The sampling methods for MMP could be adapted to other research projects at national or sub-national levels to monitor populations of interest or evaluate outcomes and care for a range of specific diseases or conditions

Transmission patterns of smallpox: systematic review of natural outbreaks in Europe and North America since World War II

BACKGROUND: Because smallpox (variola major) may be used as a biological weapon, we reviewed outbreaks in post-World War II Europe and North America in order to understand smallpox transmission patterns. METHODS: A systematic review was used to identify papers from the National Library of Medicine, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane Library, Defense Technical Information Center, WorldCat, and reference lists of included publications. Two authors reviewed selected papers for smallpox outbreaks. RESULTS: 51 relevant outbreaks were identified from 1,389 publications. The median for the effective first generation reproduction rate (initial R) was 2 (range 0–38). The majority outbreaks were small (less than 5 cases) and contained within one generation. Outbreaks with few hospitalized patients had low initial R values (median of 1) and were prolonged if not initially recognized (median of 3 generations); outbreaks with mostly hospitalized patients had higher initial R values (median 12) and were shorter (median of 3 generations). Index cases with an atypical presentation of smallpox were less likely to have been diagnosed with smallpox; outbreaks in which the index case was not correctly diagnosed were larger (median of 27.5 cases) and longer (median of 3 generations) compared to outbreaks in which the index case was correctly diagnosed (median of 3 cases and 1 generation). CONCLUSION: Patterns of spread during Smallpox outbreaks varied with circumstances, but early detection and implementation of control measures is a most important influence on the magnitude of outbreaks. The majority of outbreaks studied in Europe and North America were controlled within a few generations if detected early

HIV Testing of At Risk Patients in a Large Integrated Health Care System

OBJECTIVE: Early identification of HIV infection is critical for patients to receive life-prolonging treatment and risk-reduction counseling. Understanding HIV screening practices and barriers to HIV testing is an important prelude to designing successful HIV screening programs. Our objective was to evaluate current practice patterns for identification of HIV. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort analysis of 13,991 at-risk patients seen at 4 large Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care systems. We also reviewed 1,100 medical records of tested patients. We assessed HIV testing rates among at-risk patients, the rationale for HIV testing, and predictors of HIV testing and of HIV infection. RESULTS: Of the 13,991 patients at risk for HIV, only 36% had been HIV-tested. The prevalence of HIV ranged from 1% to 20% among tested patients at the 4 sites. Approximately 90% of patients who were tested had a documented reason for testing. CONCLUSION: One-half to two-thirds of patients at risk for HIV had not been tested within our selected VA sites. Among tested patients, the rationale for HIV testing was well documented. Further testing of at-risk patients could clearly benefit patients who have unidentified HIV infection by providing earlier access to life-prolonging therapy

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. RESULTS: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. RESULTS: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940