Efficacy of awake prone positioning in patients with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning versus usual care in non-intubated adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19. DESIGN: Systematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Randomized trials comparing awake prone positioning versus usual care in adults with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure. Information sources were Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 4 March 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed for endotracheal intubation and mortality outcomes. GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed for outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, escalation of oxygen modality, change in oxygenation and respiratory rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: 17 trials (2931 patients) met the eligibility criteria. 12 trials were at low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and two were at high risk. Awake prone positioning reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with usual care (crude average 24.2% v 29.8%, relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.94; high certainty). This translates to 55 fewer intubations per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 87 to 19 fewer intubations). Awake prone positioning did not significantly affect secondary outcomes, including mortality (15.6% v 17.2%, relative risk 0.90, 0.76 to 1.07; high certainty), ventilator-free days (mean difference 0.97 days, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 3.4; low certainty), ICU length of stay (-2.1 days, -4.5 to 0.4; low certainty), hospital length of stay (-0.09 days, -0.69 to 0.51; moderate certainty), and escalation of oxygen modality (21.4% v 23.0%, relative risk 1.04, 0.74 to 1.44; low certainty). Adverse events related to awake prone positioning were uncommon. Bayesian meta-analysis showed a high probability of benefit with awake prone positioning for endotracheal intubation (non-informative prior, mean relative risk 0.83, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.97; posterior probability for relative risk <0.95=96%) but lower probability for mortality (0.90, 0.73 to 1.13; <0.95=68%). CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone positioning compared with usual care reduces the risk of endotracheal intubation in adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19 but probably has little to no effect on mortality or other outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022314856.

Assessment of Awake Prone Positioning in Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.

Impact of Updating Pharmacogenetic Results: Lessons Learned from the PREDICT Program.

Pharmacogenomic (PGx) evidence for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) continues to evolve. For sites offering testing, maintaining up-to-date interpretations and implementing new clinical decision support (CDS) driven by existing results creates practical and technical challenges. Vanderbilt University Medical Center initiated panel testing in 2010, added CYP2D6 testing in 2017, and released CDS for SSRIs in 2020. We systematically reinterpreted historic CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genotypes to update phenotypes to current nomenclature and to launch provider CDS and patient-oriented content for SSRIs. Chart review was conducted to identify and recontact providers caring for patients with current SSRI therapy and new actionable recommendations. A total of 15,619 patients' PGx results were reprocessed. Of the non-deceased patients reprocessed, 21% (n = 3278) resulted in CYP2C19*1/*17 reinterpretations. Among 289 patients with an actionable recommendation and SSRI medication prescription, 31.8% (n = 92) did not necessitate contact of a clinician, while 43.2% (n = 125) resulted in clinician contacted, and for 25% (n = 72) no appropriate clinician was able to be identified. Maintenance of up-to-date interpretations and recommendations for PGx results over the lifetime of a patient requires continuous effort. Reprocessing is a key strategy for maintenance and expansion of PGx content to be periodically considered and implemented.