Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a primary covid-19 vaccine series plus booster doses with a primary series alone for the prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 in the United States.DesignMulticenter observational case-control study with a test negative design.SettingHospitals in 18 US states.Participants4760 adults admitted to one of 21 hospitals with acute respiratory symptoms between 26 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, a period when the omicron variant was dominant. Participants included 2385 (50.1%) patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 (cases) and 2375 (49.9%) patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls).Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with covid-19 for a primary series plus booster doses and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. Vaccine effectiveness analyses were stratified by immunosuppression status (immunocompetent, immunocompromised). The primary analysis evaluated all covid-19 vaccine types combined, and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products.ResultsOverall, median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 52-75 years), 994 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 85 (1.8%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus two boosters, 1367 (28.7%) with a primary series plus one booster, and 1875 (39.3%) with a primary series alone, and 1433 (30.1%) were unvaccinated. Among immunocompetent participants, vaccine effectiveness for prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 for a primary series plus two boosters was 63% (95% confidence interval 37% to 78%), a primary series plus one booster was 65% (58% to 71%), and for a primary series alone was 37% (25% to 47%) (P<0.001 for the pooled boosted regimens compared with a primary series alone). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for a boosted regimen than for a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech): 73% (44% to 87%) for primary series plus two boosters, 64% (55% to 72%) for primary series plus one booster, and 36% (21% to 48%) for primary series alone (P<0.001); mRNA-1273 (Moderna): 68% (17% to 88%) for primary series plus two boosters, 65% (55% to 73%) for primary series plus one booster, and 41% (25% to 54%) for primary series alone (P=0.001)). Among immunocompromised patients, vaccine effectiveness for a primary series plus one booster was 69% (31% to 86%) and for a primary series alone was 49% (30% to 63%) (P=0.04).ConclusionDuring the first six months of 2022 in the US, booster doses of a covid-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing hospital admissions with omicron related covid-19.Readers’ noteThis article is a living test negative design study that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, hypoxemia increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. The effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation is uncertain. In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 24 emergency departments and intensive care units in the United States, we randomly assigned critically ill adults (age, ≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation to receive preoxygenation with either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask. The primary outcome was hypoxemia during intubation, defined by an oxygen saturation of less than 85% during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. Among the 1301 patients enrolled, hypoxemia occurred in 57 of 624 patients (9.1%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 118 of 637 patients (18.5%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -9.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -5.6; P<0.001). Cardiac arrest occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 7 patients (1.1%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1). Aspiration occurred in 6 patients (0.9%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 9 patients (1.4%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.7). Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation resulted in a lower incidence of hypoxemia during intubation than preoxygenation with an oxygen mask. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; PREOXI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05267652.).

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021–April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%–74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%–86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%–58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, −9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%–79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, −4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric. Although relative vaccine effectiveness can be a useful measure to understand incremental benefit of a vaccine booster regimen compared with a primary series alone, absolute vaccine effectiveness estimates are needed to fully understand their benefit.

IntroductionIntubation-related complications are less frequent when intubation is successful on the first attempt. The rate of first attempt success in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) is typically less than 90%. The bougie, a semirigid introducer that can be placed into the trachea to facilitate a Seldinger-like technique of tracheal intubation and is typically reserved for difficult or failed intubations, might improve first attempt success. Evidence supporting its use, however, is from a single academic ED with frequent bougie use. Validation of these findings is needed before widespread implementation.Methods and analysisThe BOugie or stylet in patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in six EDs and six ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol 1106 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 for the use of a bougie or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is severe hypoxaemia, defined as an oxygen saturation less than 80% between induction until 2 min after completion of intubation. Enrolment began on 29 April 2019 and is expected to be completed in 2021.Ethics and disseminationThe trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the Central Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at an enrolling site. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03928925).

Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators correct the basic defect caused by CFTR mutations. Improvements in health outcomes have been achieved with the combination of a CFTR corrector and potentiator in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation. The addition of elexacaftor (VX-445), a next-generation CFTR corrector, to tezacaftor plus ivacaftor further improved F508del-CFTR function and clinical outcomes in a phase 2 study in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation. This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial of elexacaftor in combination with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor was done at 44 sites in four countries. Eligible participants were those with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation, aged 12 years or older with stable disease, and with a percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) of 40–90%, inclusive. After a 4-week tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in period, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 4 weeks of elexacaftor 200 mg orally once daily plus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h versus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h alone. The primary outcome was the absolute change from baseline (measured at the end of the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in) in ppFEV1 at week 4. Key secondary outcomes were absolute change in sweat chloride and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain (CFQ-R RD) score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03525548. Between Aug 3 and Dec 28, 2018, 113 participants were enrolled. Following the run-in, 107 participants were randomly assigned (55 in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and 52 in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group) and completed the 4-week treatment period. The elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group had improvements in the primary outcome of ppFEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] treatment difference of 10·0 percentage points [95% CI 7·4 to 12·6], p<0·0001) and the key secondary outcomes of sweat chloride concentration (LSM treatment difference −45·1 mmol/L [95% CI −50·1 to −40·1], p<0·0001), and CFQ-R RD score (LSM treatment difference 17·4 points [95% CI 11·8 to 23·0], p<0·0001) compared with the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group. The triple combination regimen was well tolerated, with no discontinuations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate; serious adverse events occurred in two (4%) participants receiving elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor and in one (2%) receiving tezacaftor plus ivacaftor. Elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor provided clinically robust benefit compared with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor alone, with a favourable safety profile, and shows the potential to lead to transformative improvements in the lives of people with cystic fibrosis who are homozygous for the F508del mutation. Vertex Pharmaceuticals.