Ford, Daniel E

Background Reductions in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension were observed early in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The degree to which BP control may have returned to prepandemic levels is unknown. Methods Individuals aged 18 to 85 years with hypertension from 17 health systems participating in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network were identified using electronic health record data collected as part of routine care. BP control (percentage of patients whose most recent BP measurement was <140/<90 mm Hg) was estimated in a series of 12‐month rolling measurement periods from 2017 through 2022 (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018; … January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022). Differences in average BP control between 2022 (January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022) and 2019 (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) were estimated overall (adjusted for age, sex, and race and ethnicity) and by race and ethnicity (adjusted for age and sex). Results Our sample included 1 193 314 persons with hypertension in 2019 (48.9% aged 65–85 years, 52.9% men, 66.2% non‐Hispanic White) and 1 499 418 individuals in 2022 (50.6% aged 65–85 years, 47.1% men, 62.7% non‐Hispanic White). The weighted average BP control dropped from 65.3% in 2019 to 61.8% in 2020 and then partially recovered to 62.6% in 2022 (adjusted mean difference, −2.6 percentage points [95% CI, −5.0 to −0.2]). Non‐Hispanic Asian individuals experienced the largest temporal drop in BP control, declining from 68.4% in 2019 to 63.9% in 2022. Conclusions BP control was disrupted during the COVID‐19 pandemic and had not fully rebounded to prepandemic levels by the end of 2022. Continued surveillance is needed to determine whether the decline in BP control will persist and will result in future adverse cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined. METHODS This secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization–equivalent anti–Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 anti–S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION In unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors’ antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460. FUNDING Department of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

AbstractBackgroundCOVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.Study Design and MethodsWe analyzed data pertaining to transfusion‐related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsThe combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic‐type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID‐19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43–1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre‐existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16–4.67). We did not observe any CCP‐attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID‐19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life‐threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion‐associated complications.DiscussionOutpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID‐19.

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency. Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. Results: 397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants. Conclusion: Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.