ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The inhaled vasodilators nitric oxide and epoprostenol may be initiated to improve oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure (ARF); however, practice patterns and head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness are unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the practice patterns and comparative effectiveness for inhaled nitric oxide and epoprostenol in severe ARF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a large US database (Premier Healthcare Database), we identified adult patients with ARF or ARDS who were mechanically ventilated and started on inhaled nitric oxide, epoprostenol, or both. Leveraging large hospital variation in the choice of initial inhaled vasodilator, we compared the effectiveness of inhaled nitric oxide with that of epoprostenol by limiting analysis to patients admitted to hospitals that exclusively used either inhaled nitric oxide or epoprostenol. The primary outcome of successful extubation was modeled using multivariate Fine-Grey competing risk (death or hospice discharge) time-to-event models. RESULTS: Among 11,200 patients (303 hospitals), 6,366 patients (56.8%) received inhaled nitric oxide first, 4,720 patients (42.1%) received inhaled epoprostenol first, and 114 patients (1.0%) received both therapies on the same day. One hundred four hospitals (34.3%; 1,666 patients) exclusively used nitric oxide and 118 hospitals (38.9%; 1,812 patients) exclusively used epoprostenol. No differences were found in the likelihood of successful extubation between patients admitted to nitric oxide-only hospitals vs those admitted to epoprostenol-only hospitals (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). Also no differences were found in total hospital costs or death. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Large variation exists in the use of initial inhaled vasodilator for respiratory failure across US hospitals. Comparative effectiveness analyses identified no differences in outcomes based on inhaled vasodilator type.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Bayes Theorem , Hospitals , Humans , Oxygen , Prone Position , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , SmartphoneABSTRACT
The unprecedented public health burdens of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have intensified the urgency of identifying effective, low-cost treatments that limit the need for advanced life support measures and improve clinical outcomes. However, personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, disease virulence, and infectivity have created significant barriers to traditional clinical trial practices. We present the novel design of a pragmatic, adaptive, multicenter, international, prospective randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of awake prone positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 (APPEX-19 [Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19]). Key innovations of this trial include 1) a novel smartphone-based communication process that facilitates rapid enrollment and intervention delivery while allowing social distancing and conservation of personal protective equipment, 2) Bayesian response-adaptive randomization to allow preferential assignment to the most effective intervention and expedite trial completion compared with frequentist designs, 3) remote electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes and electronic medical record data, and 4) pragmatic prospective use of patient-reported data and data collected as part of routine clinical care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04344587).