ABSTRACT
Clinicians, eager to offer the best care in the absence of guiding data, have provided patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diverse clinical interventions. This usage has led to perceptions of efficacy of some interventions that, while receiving media coverage, lack robust evidence. Moving forward, randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to ensure that clinicians can treat patients effectively during this outbreak and the next. To do so, academic medical centers must address 2 key research issues: (1) how to effectively and efficiently determine which trials have the best chance of benefiting current and future patients and (2) how to establish a transparent and ethical process for subject recruitment while maintaining research integrity and without overburdening patients or staff. We share here the current methods used by Michigan Medicine to address these issues.
Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/therapy , Patient Selection/ethics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Humans , Informed Consent , Michigan , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are considered to be "vulnerable" to COVID-19 infection due to immunosuppression. To date, there are no studies that compared the disease severity of COVID-19 in SOT recipients with nontransplant patients. METHODS: In this case-control study, we compared the outcomes of COVID-19 between SOT recipients and their matched nontransplant controls. The cases were all adult SOT recipients (N = 41) from our academic health center who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10, 2020 and May 15, 2020 using positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV2. The controls (N = 121) were matched on age (±5 y), race, and admission status (hospital or outpatient). The primary outcome was death and secondary outcomes were severe disease, intubation and renal replacement therapy (RRT). RESULTS: Median age of SOT recipients (9 heart, 3 lung, 16 kidney, 8 liver, and 5 dual organ) was 60 y, 80% were male and 67% were Black. Severe disease adjusted risk of death was similar in both the groups (hazard ratio = 0.84 [0.32-2.20]). Severity of COVID-19 and intubation were similar, but the RRT use was higher in SOT (odds ratio = 5.32 [1.26, 22.42]) compared to non-SOT COVID-19 patients. Among SOT recipients, COVID-19-related treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was associated with 10-fold higher hazard of death compared to without HCQ (hazard ratio = 10.62 [1.24-91.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Although African Americans constituted one-tenth of all SOT in our center, they represented two-thirds of COVID-19 cases. Despite high RRT use in SOT recipients, the severe disease and short-term death were similar in both groups. HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 among SOT recipients was associated with high mortality and therefore, its role as a treatment modality requires further scrutiny.