FDA and industry collaboration: Identifying opportunities to further reduce reliance on nonhuman primates for nonclinical safety evaluations.

The nonhuman primate (NHP) has always been a limited resource for pharmaceutical research with ongoing efforts to conserve. This is due to their inherent biological properties, the growth in biotherapeutics and other modalities, and their use in small molecule drug development. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted the availability of NHPs due to the immediate need for NHPs to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments and the China NHP export ban; thus, accelerating the need to further replace, reduce and refine (3Rs) NHP use. The impact of the NHP shortage on drug development led DruSafe, BioSafe, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) to discuss this issue at their 2021 annual meeting. This meeting identified areas to further the 3Rs in NHP use within the current nonclinical safety evaluation regulatory framework and highlighted the need to continue advancing alternative methods towards the aspirational goal to replace use of NHPs in the long term. Alignment across global health authorities is necessary for implementation of approaches that fall outside existing guidelines. This article captures the proceedings from this meeting highlighting current best practices and areas for 3Rs in NHP use.

Characteristics and Outcomes of US Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Understanding COVID-19 epidemiology is crucial to clinical care and to clinical trial design and interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 early in the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 57 US hospitals from March 1 to April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Of 1480 inpatients with COVID-19, median (IQR) age was 62.0 (49.4-72.9) years, 649 (43.9%) were female, and 822 of 1338 (61.4%) were non-White or Hispanic/Latino. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 575 patients (38.9%), mostly within 4 days of hospital presentation. Respiratory failure affected 583 patients (39.4%), including 284 (19.2%) within 24 hours of hospital presentation and 413 (27.9%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 8 (5-15) days overall and 15 (9-24) days among intensive care unit patients. Hospital mortality was 17.7% (n = 262). Risk factors for hospital death identified by penalized multivariable regression included older age; male sex; comorbidity burden; symptoms-to-admission interval; hypotension; hypoxemia; and higher white blood cell count, creatinine level, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Of 1218 survivors, 221 (18.1%) required new respiratory support at discharge and 259 of 1153 (22.5%) admitted from home required new health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In a geographically diverse early-pandemic COVID-19 cohort with complete hospital folllow-up, hospital mortality was associated with older age, comorbidity burden, and male sex. Intensive care unit admissions occurred early and were associated with protracted hospital stays. Survivors often required new health care services or respiratory support at discharge.

The Impact of Timing on Clinical and Economic Outcomes During Inter-ICU Transfer of Acute Respiratory Failure Patients: Time and Tide Wait for No One

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: Approximately one in 30 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) undergoes an inter-ICU transfer. Our objectives are to describe inter-ICU transfer patterns and evaluate the impact of timing of transfer on patient-centered outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective, quasi-experimental study. SETTING: We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases in five states (Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, and Washington) during 2015–2017. PARTICIPANTS: We selected patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes of respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation who underwent an inter-ICU transfer (n = 6,718), grouping as early (≤ 2 d) and later transfers (3+ d). To control for potential selection bias, we propensity score matched patients (1:1) to model propensity for early transfer using a priori defined patient demographic, clinical, and hospital variables. MAIN OUTCOMES: Inhospital mortality, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and cumulative charges related to inter-ICU transfer. RESULTS: Six-thousand seven-hundred eighteen patients with ARF underwent inter-ICU transfer, 68% of whom (n = 4,552) were transferred early (≤ 2 d). Propensity score matching yielded 3,774 well-matched patients for this study. Unadjusted outcomes were all superior in the early versus later transfer cohort: inhospital mortality (24.4% vs 36.1%;p < 0.0001), length of stay (8 vs 22 d;p < 0.0001), and cumulative charges ($118,686 vs $308,977;p < 0.0001). Through doubly robust multivariable modeling with random effects at the state level, we found patients who were transferred early had a 55.8% reduction in risk of inhospital mortality than those whose transfer was later (relative risk, 0.442;95% CI, 0.403–0.497). Additionally, the early transfer cohort had lower HLOS (20.7 fewer days [13.0 vs 33.7;p < 0.0001]), and lower cumulative charges ($66,201 less [$192,182 vs $258,383;p < 0.0001]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study is the first to use a large, multistate sample to evaluate the practice of inter-ICU transfers in ARF and also define early and later transfers. Our findings of favorable outcomes with early transfer are vital in designing future prospective studies evaluating evidence-based transfer procedures and policies.

All Hands-On Deck and All Decks on Hand: Surmounting Supply Chain Limitations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Testing during the COVID-19 pandemic has been crucial to public health surveillance and clinical care. Supply chain constraints-spanning limitations in testing kits, reagents, pipet tips, and swabs availability-have challenged the ability to scale COVID-19 testing. During the early months, sample collection kits shortages constrained planned testing expansions. In response, the University of Vermont Medical Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Vermont Department of Health Laboratory, Aspenti Health, and providers across Vermont including 16 area hospitals partnered to surmount these barriers. The primary objectives were to increase supply availability and manage utilization. Within the first month of Vermont's stay-at-home order, the University of Vermont Medical Center laboratory partnered with College of Medicine to create in-house collection kits, producing 5000 per week. University of Vermont Medical Center reassigned 4 phlebotomists, laboratory educators, and other laboratory staff, who had reduced workloads, to participate (requiring a total of 5.3-7.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) during the period of study). By August, automation at a local commercial laboratory produced 22,000 vials of media in one week (reducing the required personnel by 1.2 FTE). A multisite, cross-institutional approach was used to manage specimen collection kit utilization across Vermont. Hospital laboratory directors, managers, and providers agreed to order only as needed to avoid supply stockpiles and supported operational constraints through ongoing validations and kit assembly. Throughout this pandemic, Vermont has ranked highly in number of tests per million people, demonstrating the value of local collaboration to surmount obstacles during disease outbreaks and the importance of creative allocation of resources to address statewide needs.

Indirect Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Activity and Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in England.

[Figure: see text].

Revascularisation strategies in patients with significant left main coronary disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on left main (LM) coronary revascularisation activity, choice of revascularisation strategy, and post-procedural outcomes. METHODS: All patients with LM disease (≥50% stenosis) undergoing coronary revascularisation in England between January 1, 2017 and August 19, 2020 were included (n = 22,235), stratified by time-period (pre-COVID: 01/01/2017-29/2/2020; COVID: 1/3/2020-19/8/2020) and revascularisation strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Logistic regression models were performed to examine odds ratio (OR) of 1) receipt of CABG (vs. PCI) and 2) in-hospital and 30-day postprocedural mortality, in the COVID-19 period (vs. pre-COVID). RESULTS: There was a decline of 1,354 LM revascularisation procedures between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 compared with previous years' (2017-2019) averages (-48.8%). An increased utilization of PCI over CABG was observed in the COVID period (receipt of CABG vs. PCI: OR 0.46 [0.39, 0.53] compared with 2017), consistent across all age groups. No difference in adjusted in-hospital or 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID periods for both PCI (odds ratio (OR): 0.72 [0.51. 1.02] and 0.83 [0.62, 1.11], respectively) and CABG (OR 0.98 [0.45, 2.14] and 1.51 [0.77, 2.98], respectively) groups. CONCLUSION: LM revascularisation activity has significantly declined during the COVID period, with a shift towards PCI as the preferred strategy. Postprocedural mortality within each revascularisation group was similar in the pre-COVID and COVID periods, reflecting maintenance in quality of outcomes during the pandemic. Future measures are required to safely restore LM revascularisation activity to pre-COVID levels.

Viscoelastic hemostasis assays in septic, critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a practical guide for clinicians.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated coagulopathy is unusual, poorly defined and is linked with significant hypercoagulability and microthrombotic and macrothrombotic complications leading to worse outcomes and higher mortality. Conventional coagulation assays do not always actively reflect these derangements and might fail to detect this coagulopathy. Viscoelastic hemostatic assays (VHA) provide a possible tool that adds to conventional coagulation assays in identifying this hypercoagulable state. VHA has been mostly used in surgery and trauma but it's still not well defined in sepsis patients with lack of large randomized trials. Few studies described VHA findings in patients with COVID-19 showing significant hypercoagulability and fibrinolysis shutdown. Clinicians taking care of these patients might have little experience interpreting VHA results. By reviewing the available literature on the use of VHA in sepsis, and the current knowledge on COVID-19-associated coagulopathy we provide clinicians with a practical guide on VHA utilization in patients with COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiac procedure activity in England and associated 30-day mortality.

AIMS: Limited data exist on the impact of COVID-19 on national changes in cardiac procedure activity, including patient characteristics and clinical outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: All major cardiac procedures (n = 374 899) performed between 1 January and 31 May for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 were analysed, stratified by procedure type and time-period (pre-COVID: January-May 2018 and 2019 and January-February 2020 and COVID: March-May 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the odds ratio (OR) of 30-day mortality for procedures performed in the COVID period. Overall, there was a deficit of 45 501 procedures during the COVID period compared to the monthly averages (March-May) in 2018-2019. Cardiac catheterization and device implantations were the most affected in terms of numbers (n = 19 637 and n = 10 453), whereas surgical procedures such as mitral valve replacement, other valve replacement/repair, atrioseptal defect/ventriculoseptal defect repair, and coronary artery bypass grafting were the most affected as a relative percentage difference (Δ) to previous years' averages. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was the least affected (Δ -10.6%). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID time-periods for all cardiac procedures except cardiac catheterization [OR 1.25 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.47, P = 0.006] and cardiac device implantation (OR 1.35 95% CI 1.15-1.58, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiac procedural activity has significantly declined across England during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a deficit in excess of 45 000 procedures, without an increase in risk of mortality for most cardiac procedures performed during the pandemic. Major restructuring of cardiac services is necessary to deal with this deficit, which would inevitably impact long-term morbidity and mortality.

A nationwide survey of UK cardiac surgeons' view on clinical decision making during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: No firm recommendations are currently available to guide decision making for patients requiring cardiac surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Systematic appraisal of senior surgeons' consensus can be used to generate interim recommendations until data from clinical observations become available. Hence, we aimed to collect and quantitatively appraise nationwide UK consultants' opinions on clinical decision making for patients requiring cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We E-mailed a Web-based questionnaire to all consultant cardiac surgeons through the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland mailing list on the April 17, 2020, and we predetermined to close the survey on the April 21, 2020. This survey was primarily designed to gather information on UK surgeons' opinions using 12 items. Strong consensus was predefined as an opinion shared by at least 60% of responding consultants. RESULTS: A total of 86 consultant surgeons undertook the survey. All UK cardiac units were represented by at least 1 consultant. Strong consensus was achieved for the following key questions: (1) before any hospital admission for cardiac surgery, nasopharyngeal swab, polymerase chain reaction, and computed tomography of the chest should be performed; (2) the use of full personal protective equipment should to be adopted in every case by the theater team regardless of the patient's COVID-19 status; (3) the risk of COVID-19 exposure for patients undergoing heart surgery should be considered moderate to high and likely to increase mortality if it occurs; and (4) cardiac procedures should be decided based on a rapidly convened multidisciplinary team discussion for every patient. The majority believed that both aortic and mitral surgery should be considered in selected cases. The role of coronary artery bypass graft surgery during the pandemic was controversial. CONCLUSIONS: In this unprecedented pandemic period, this survey provides information for generating interim recommendations until data from clinical observations become available.