Faculty Bibliography

Importance:COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective:To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources:From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection:Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis:A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures:Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results:Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance:This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Identifying successful strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination among skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff is integral to preventing future outbreaks in a continually overwhelmed system. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether a multicomponent vaccine campaign would increase vaccine rates among SNF residents and staff. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This was a cluster randomized trial with a rapid timeline (December 2020-March 2021) coinciding with the Pharmacy Partnership Program (PPP). It included 133 SNFs in 4 health care systems across 16 states: 63 and 70 facilities in the intervention and control arms, respectively, and participants included 7496 long-stay residents (>100 days) and 17 963 staff. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Multicomponent interventions were introduced at the facility level that included: (1) educational material and electronic messaging for staff; (2) town hall meetings with frontline staff (nurses, nurse aides, dietary, housekeeping); (3) messaging from community leaders; (4) gifts (eg, T-shirts) with socially concerned messaging; (5) use of a specialist to facilitate consent with residents' proxies; and (6) funds for additional COVID-19 testing of staff/residents. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of residents (from electronic medical records) and staff (from facility logs) who received a COVID-19 vaccine (any), examined as 2 separate outcomes. Mixed-effects generalized linear models with a binomial distribution were used to compare outcomes between arms, using intent-to-treat approach. Race was examined as an effect modifier in the resident outcome model. Results/UNASSIGNED:Most facilities were for-profit (95; 71.4%), and 1973 (26.3%) of residents were Black. Among residents, 82.5% (95% CI, 81.2%-83.7%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 79.8% (95% CI, 78.5%-81.0%) in the usual care arm (marginal difference 0.8%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 3.7%). Among staff, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.4%-50.6%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 47.9% (95% CI, 46.9%-48.9%) in usual care arm (marginal difference: -0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 3.1%). There was no association of race with the outcome among residents. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:A multicomponent vaccine campaign did not have a significant effect on vaccination rates among SNF residents or staff. Among residents, vaccination rates were high. However, half the staff remained unvaccinated despite these efforts. Vaccination campaigns to target SNF staff will likely need to use additional approaches. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04732819.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Many investigators of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) are unfamiliar with the embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and the indispensable pilot phase preceding ePCTs. This paper provides a much-needed example for such a pilot phase and discusses implementation barriers and additional infrastructure and implementation strategies developed in preparation for a nationwide AD/ADRD ePCT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Two pilot trials were conducted in two hospices sequentially to refine and test Aliviado Dementia Care-Hospice Edition, a complex quality improvement intervention for advanced dementia symptom management. Readiness for the subsequent full-scale ePCT was assessed by three milestones: ≥80% training completion rate ("feasibility"), ≥80% post-training survey respondents indicating intention for practice changes ("applicability"), and at least one Aliviado care plan/assessment instrument administered in ≥75% of dementia patients admitted to home hospice within one-month post training ("fidelity"). RESULTS:Participants included 72 interdisciplinary team (IDT) members and 11 patients with AD/ADRD across the pilots. Feasibility, applicability, and fidelity outcomes (92%, 93%, and 100%, respectively) all surpassed the pre-established milestones (80%, 80%, and 75%). Main implementation challenges were related to hospice staff turnover, integration of the Aliviado toolbox materials within the electronic health records, and hospices' limited research experience and infrastructure. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS/UNASSIGNED:This pilot phase demonstrated feasibility, applicability, and fidelity required to proceed to the full-scale ePCT. Our study findings and discussions of additional infrastructure and implementation strategies developed following the pilot phase can inform researchers and clinicians interested in conducting AD/ADRD-related pilot studies for ePTCs or quality improvement initiatives. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER/UNASSIGNED:NCT03681119.

Background: Conservative kidney management (CKM) of kidney failure is an important treatment option for many patients. However, its availability in the United States (US) is not well described. We describe CKM resources and provider practice patterns in US Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) clinics.
Method(s): Cross sectional analysis of provider surveys (n=22) from unique clinics in the US from the CKD Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (CKDopps) collected between 2014-2017.
Result(s): Only eight (36%) providers reported involving palliative care in planning for and educating patients about kidney failure. A majority (59%) were extremely comfortable discussing CKM and nearly 100% typically discussed CKM as a treatment option. Nearly all (95%) reported their clinics had the ability to routinely deliver CKM, but only one had a CKM protocol or guideline, and none offered a specific CKM clinic. Most providers said their clinics used the word conservative to describe CKM, with 24% choosing palliative or supportive terminology. Regardless of involvement of PC, most providers estimated that 5% of their patients with or approaching kidney failure were managed with CKM. Patient preference, functional status, frailty, and comorbidities were the most important factors influencing provider decisions in contemplating the suitability of CKM for patients. (Figure 1)
Conclusion(s): Most providers report feeling comfortable discussing CKM, yet almost no clinics report resources or dedicated infrastructure for CKM delivery. Despite reported high frequency of discussing CKM, few patients were described as choosing this treatment pathway. Factors that influence consideration of CKM are consistent with elements that generally influence well-informed geriatric and end-of-life care. Efforts to improve assessment of those elements may allow for more informed recommendations of CKM

In 2021, Delta has become the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant worldwide. While vaccines effectively prevent COVID-19 hospitalization and death, vaccine breakthrough infections increasingly occur. The precise role of clinical and genomic determinants in Delta infections is not known, and whether they contribute to increased rates of breakthrough infections compared to unvaccinated controls. Here, we show a steep and near complete replacement of circulating variants with Delta between May and August 2021 in metropolitan New York. We observed an increase of the Delta sublineage AY.25, its spike mutation S112L, and nsp12 mutation F192V in breakthroughs. Delta infections were associated with younger age and lower hospitalization rates than Alpha. Delta breakthroughs increased significantly with time since vaccination, and, after adjusting for confounders, they rose at similar rates as in unvaccinated individuals. Our data indicate a limited impact of vaccine escape in favor of Delta's increased epidemic growth in times of waning vaccine protection.

The EXIT-CJS (N = 1005) multisite open-label randomized controlled trial will compare retention and effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine (XR-B) vs. extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) among criminal justice system (CJS)-involved adults in six U.S. locales (New Jersey, New York City, Delaware, Oregon, Connecticut, and New Hampshire). With a pragmatic, noninferiority design, this study hypothesizes that XR-B (n = 335) will be noninferior to XR-NTX (n = 335) in retention-in-study-medication treatment (the primary outcome), self-reported opioid use, opioid-positive urine samples, opioid overdose events, and CJS recidivism. In addition, persons with OUD not eligible or interested in the RCT will be recruited into an enhanced treatment as usual arm (n = 335) to examine usual care outcomes in a quasi-experimental observational cohort.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB), a monthly injectable long-acting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, has not been studied for use in corrections facilities. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare treatment retention following release from jail among adults receiving daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SLB) vs those receiving XRB. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This open-label, randomized comparative effectiveness study included 52 incarcerated adults in New York City observed for 8 weeks postrelease between June 2019 and May 2020. Participants were soon-to-be-released volunteers from 1 men's and 1 women's jail facility who had OUDs already treated with SLB. Follow-up treatment was received at a primary care clinic in Manhattan. Data were analyzed between June 2020 and December 2020. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:XRB treatment was offered prior to release and continued monthly through 8 weeks after release. SLB participants continued to receive daily directly observed in-jail SLB administration, were provided a 7-day SLB supply at jail release, and followed up at a designated clinic (or other preferred clinics). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Buprenorphine treatment retention at 8 weeks postrelease. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 52 participants were randomized 1:1 to XRB (26 participants) and SLB (26 participants). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (10.0) years; 45 participants (87%) were men; and 40 (77%) primarily used heroin prior to incarceration. Most participants (30 [58%]) reported prior buprenorphine use; 18 (35%) reported active community buprenorphine treatment prior to jail admission. Twenty-one of 26 assigned to XRB received 1 or more XRB injection prior to release; 3 initiated XRB postrelease; and 2 did not receive XRB. Patients in the XRB arm had fewer jail medical visits compared with daily SLB medication administration (mean [SD] visits per day: XRB, 0.11 [0.03] vs SLB, 1.06 [0.08]). Community buprenorphine treatment retention at week 8 postrelease was 18 participants in the XRB group (69.2%) vs 9 in the SLB group (34.6%), and rates of opioid-negative urine tests were 72 of 130 tests in the XRB group (55.3%) and 50 of 130 tests in the SLB group (38.4%). There were no differences in rates of serious adverse events, no overdoses, and no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:XRB was acceptable among patients currently receiving SLB, and patients had fewer in-jail clinic visits and increased community buprenorphine treatment retention when compared with standard daily SLB treatment. These results support wider use and further study of XRB as correctional and reentry OUD treatment. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03604159.

BACKGROUND:The Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial is a large, multicenter, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in emergency department (ED) patients comparing two models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. This report aims to: 1) report baseline demographic and quality of life (QOL) data for the EMPallA cohort, 2) identify the association between illness type and baseline QOL while controlling for other factors, and 3) explore baseline relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness. METHODS: < 50%) are eligible for enrollment. Baseline data includes self-reported demographics, QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), loneliness measured by the Three-Item UCLA Loneliness Scale, and symptom burden measured by the Edmonton Revised Symptom Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic variables, a linear regression model measured the importance of illness type in predicting QOL, and chi-square tests of independence were used to quantify relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness. RESULTS:Between April 2018 and April 3, 2020, 500 patients were enrolled. On average, end-stage organ failure patients had lower QOL as measured by the FACT-G scale than cancer patients with an estimated difference of 9.6 points (95% CI: 5.9, 13.3), and patients with multiple conditions had a further reduction of 7.4 points (95% CI: 2.4, 12.5), when adjusting for age, education level, race, sex, immigrant status, presence of a caregiver, and hospital setting. Symptom burden and loneliness were greater in end-stage organ failure than in cancer. CONCLUSIONS:The EMPallA trial is enrolling a diverse sample of ED patients. Differences by illness type in QOL, symptom burden, and loneliness demonstrate how distinct disease trajectories manifest in the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03325985 . Registered October 30, 2017.

As the world faced the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020, numerous clinical trials were initiated in many locations in an effort to establish the efficacy (or lack thereof) of potential treatments. As the pandemic has been shifting locations rapidly, individual studies have been at risk of failing to meet recruitment targets because of declining numbers of eligible patients with COVID-19 encountered at participating sites. It has become clear that it might take several more COVID-19 surges at the same location to achieve full enrollment and to find answers about what treatments are effective for this disease. This paper proposes an innovative approach for pooling patient-level data from multiple ongoing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that have not been configured as a network of sites. We present the statistical analysis plan of a prospective individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) from ongoing RCTs of convalescent plasma (CP). We employ an adaptive Bayesian approach for continuously monitoring the accumulating pooled data via posterior probabilities for safety, efficacy, and harm. Although we focus on RCTs for CP and address specific challenges related to CP treatment for COVID-19, the proposed framework is generally applicable to pooling data from RCTs for other therapies and disease settings in order to find answers in weeks or months, rather than years.