Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19 by Stromal Cells (REALIST-COVID Trial): A Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial.

RATIONALE: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: We investigated safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-related ARDS. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143) randomised patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS to receive ORBCEL-C (400million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte148). MEASUREMENTS: The primary safety and efficacy outcomes were incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at day 7 respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year, and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at day 0, 4 and 7. MAIN RESULTS: 60 participants were recruited (final analysis n=30 ORBCEL-C, n=29 placebo: 1 in placebo group withdrew consent). 6 serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C and 3 in the placebo group, RR 2.9(0.6-13.2)p=0.25. Day 7 mean[SD] oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C 98.357.2], placebo 96.667.3). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes, nor mortality at day 28, day 90, 1 or 2 years. There was no difference in prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1year nor significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome. CONCLUSION: ORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS, but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction. Clinical trial registration available at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT03042143. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Repair of acute respiratory distress syndrome by stromal cell administration (REALIST): a structured study protocol for an open-label dose-escalation phase 1 trial followed by a randomised, triple-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in ARDS due to immunomodulatory and reparative properties. This trial investigates a novel CD362 enriched umbilical cord derived MSC product (REALIST ORBCEL-C), produced to Good Manufacturing Practice standards, in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 and ARDS due to other causes. METHODS: Phase 1 is a multicentre open-label dose-escalation pilot trial. Patients will receive a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (100 × 106 cells, 200 × 106 cells or 400 × 106 cells) in a 3 + 3 design. Phase 2 is a multicentre randomised, triple blind, allocation concealed placebo-controlled trial. Two cohorts of patients, with ARDS due to COVID-19 or ARDS due to other causes, will be recruited and randomised 1:1 to receive either a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (400 × 106 cells or maximal tolerated dose in phase 1) or placebo. Planned recruitment to each cohort is 60 patients. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is oxygenation index at day 7. The trial will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) statement. DISCUSSION: The development and manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product to Good Manufacturing Practice standards within NHS infrastructure are discussed, including challenges encountered during the early stages of trial set up. The rationale to include a separate cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 in phase 2 of the trial is outlined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143. Registered on 3 February 2017. EudraCT Number 2017-000584-33.

Resuscitation with blood products in patients with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock receiving prehospital care (RePHILL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Time to treatment matters in traumatic haemorrhage but the optimal prehospital use of blood in major trauma remains uncertain. We investigated whether use of packed red blood cells (PRBC) and lyophilised plasma (LyoPlas) was superior to use of 0·9% sodium chloride for improving tissue perfusion and reducing mortality in trauma-related haemorrhagic shock. METHODS: Resuscitation with pre-hospital blood products (RePHILL) is a multicentre, allocation concealed, open-label, parallel group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in four civilian prehospital critical care services in the UK. Adults (age ≥16 years) with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock and hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or absence of palpable radial pulse) were assessed for eligibility by prehospital critial care teams. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either up to two units each of PRBC and LyoPlas or up to 1 L of 0·9% sodium chloride administered through the intravenous or intraosseous route. Sealed treatment packs which were identical in external appearance, containing PRBC-LyoPlas or 0·9% sodium chloride were prepared by blood banks and issued to participating sites according to a randomisation schedule prepared by the co-ordinating centre (1:1 ratio, stratified by site). The primary outcome was a composite of episode mortality or impaired lactate clearance, or both, measured in the intention-to-treat population. This study is completed and registered with ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN62326938. FINDINGS: From Nov 29, 2016 to Jan 2, 2021, prehospital critical care teams randomly assigned 432 participants to PRBC-LyoPlas (n=209) or to 0·9% sodium chloride (n=223). Trial recruitment was stopped before it achieved the intended sample size of 490 participants due to disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The median follow-up was 9 days (IQR 1 to 34) for participants in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and 7 days (0 to 31) for people in the 0·9% sodium chloride group. Participants were mostly white (62%) and male (82%), had a median age of 38 years (IQR 26 to 58), and were mostly involved in a road traffic collision (62%) with severe injuries (median injury severity score 36, IQR 25 to 50). Before randomisation, participants had received on average 430 mL crystalloid fluids and tranexamic acid (90%). The composite primary outcome occurred in 128 (64%) of 199 participants randomly assigned to PRBC-LyoPlas and 136 (65%) of 210 randomly assigned to 0·9% sodium chloride (adjusted risk difference -0·025% [95% CI -9·0 to 9·0], p=0·996). The rates of transfusion-related complications in the first 24 h after ED arrival were similar across treatment groups (PRBC-LyoPlas 11 [7%] of 148 compared with 0·9% sodium chloride nine [7%] of 137, adjusted relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·46-2·42]). Serious adverse events included acute respiratory distress syndrome in nine (6%) of 142 patients in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and three (2%) of 130 in 0·9% sodium chloride group, and two other unexpected serious adverse events, one in the PRBC-LyoPlas (cerebral infarct) and one in the 0·9% sodium chloride group (abnormal liver function test). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The trial did not show that prehospital PRBC-LyoPlas resuscitation was superior to 0·9% sodium chloride for adult patients with trauma related haemorrhagic shock. Further research is required to identify the characteristics of patients who might benefit from prehospital transfusion and to identify the optimal outcomes for transfusion trials in major trauma. The decision to commit to routine prehospital transfusion will require careful consideration by all stakeholders. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination from hospitalised patients with COVID-19 receiving aerosol-generating procedures.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.

Repair of acute respiratory distress syndrome by stromal cell administration (REALIST) trial: A phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to immunomodulatory, reparative, and antimicrobial actions. ORBCEL-C is a population of CD362 enriched umbilical cord-derived MSCs. The REALIST phase 1 trial investigated the safety and feasibility of ORBCEL-C in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. METHODS: REALIST phase 1 was an open label, dose escalation trial in which cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS received increasing doses (100, 200 or 400 × 106 cells) of a single intravenous infusion of ORBCEL-C in a 3 + 3 design. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as a serious adverse reaction within seven days. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03042143. FINDINGS: Nine patients were recruited between the 7th January 2019 and 14th January 2020. Study drug administration was well tolerated and no dose limiting toxicity was reported in any of the three cohorts. Eight adverse events were reported for four patients. Pyrexia within 24 h of study drug administration was reported in two patients as pre-specified adverse events. A further two adverse events (non-sustained ventricular tachycardia and deranged liver enzymes), were reported as adverse reactions. Four serious adverse events were reported (colonic perforation, gastric perforation, bradycardia and myocarditis) but none were deemed related to administration of ORBCEL-C. At day 28 no patients had died in cohort one (100 × 106), three patients had died in cohort two (200 × 106) and one patient had died in cohort three (400 × 106). Overall day 28 mortality was 44% (n = 4/9). INTERPRETATION: A single intravenous infusion of ORBCEL-C was well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. No dose limiting toxicity was reported up to 400 × 106 cells.

Effect of Lower Tidal Volume Ventilation Facilitated by Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal vs Standard Care Ventilation on 90-Day Mortality in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The REST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. Results: Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, -7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, -2.1 [95% CI, -3.8 to -0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02654327.

Assessing the quality of ReSPECT documentation using an accountability for reasonableness framework.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, which supports the ReSPECT process, is designed to prompt clinicians to discuss wider emergency treatment options with patients and to structure the documentation of decision-making for greater transparency. METHODS: Following an accountability for reasonableness framework (AFR), we analysed 141 completed ReSPECT forms (versions 1.0 and 2.0), collected from six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England during the early adoption of ReSPECT. Structured through an evaluation tool developed for this study, the analysis assessed the extent to which the records reflected consistency, transparency, and ethical justification of decision-making. RESULTS: Recommendations relating to CPR were consistently recorded on all forms and were contextualised within other treatment recommendations in most forms. The level of detail provided about treatment recommendations varied widely and reasons for treatment recommendations were rarely documented. Patient capacity, patient priorities and preferences, and the involvement of patients/relatives in ReSPECT conversations were recorded in some, but not all, forms. Clinicians almost never documented their weighing of potential burdens and benefits of treatments on the ReSPECT forms. CONCLUSION: In most ReSPECT forms, CPR recommendations were captured alongside other treatment recommendations. However, ReSPECT form design and associated training should be modified to address inconsistencies in form completion. These modifications should emphasise the recording of patient values and preferences, assessment of patient capacity, and clinical reasoning processes, thereby putting patient/family involvement at the core of good clinical practice. Version 3.0 of ReSPECT responds to these issues.

To ventilate or not to ventilate during bystander CPR - A EuReCa TWO analysis.

BACKGROUND: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases. One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR). METHOD: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed. RESULTS: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.83). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Executive summary.

Informed by a series of systematic reviews, scoping reviews and evidence updates from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, the 2021 European Resuscitation Council Guidelines present the most up to date evidence-based guidelines for the practice of resuscitation across Europe. The guidelines cover the epidemiology of cardiac arrest; the role that systems play in saving lives, adult basic life support, adult advanced life support, resuscitation in special circumstances, post resuscitation care, first aid, neonatal life support, paediatric life support, ethics and education.

[Executive summary]. / Kurzfassung: Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2021.

Informed by a series of systematic reviews, scoping reviews and evidence updates from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, the 2021 European Resuscitation Council Guidelines present the most up to date evidence-based guidelines for the practice of resuscitation across Europe. The guidelines cover the epidemiology of cardiac arrest; the role that systems play in saving lives, adult basic life support, adult advanced life support, resuscitation in special circumstances, post resuscitation care, first aid, neonatal life support, paediatric life support, ethics and education.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in London during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: There is an emerging potential link between the COVID-19 pandemic and incidence and outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We aimed to describe the incidence, characteristics and outcomes from OHCA in London, UK during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: We examined data for all OHCA patients attended by the London Ambulance Service from 1st March to 30th April 2020 and compared our findings to the previous year. We also compared OHCA characteristics and short-term outcomes for those suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 with those who were not. Additionally, we investigated the relationship between daily COVID-19 cases and OHCA incidents. RESULTS: We observed an 81% increase in OHCAs during the pandemic, and a strong correlation between the daily number of COVID-19 cases and OHCA incidents (r = 0.828, p < 0.001). We report an increase in OHCA occurring in a private location (92.9% vs 85.5%, p < 0.001) and an increased bystander CPR (63.3% vs 52.6%, p < 0.001) during the pandemic, as well as fewer resuscitation attempts (36.4% vs 39.6%, p = 0.03) and longer EMS response times (9.3 vs 7.2 min, p < 0.001). Survival at 30 days post-arrest was poorer during the pandemic (4.4% vs 10.6%, p < 0.001) and amongst patients where COVID-19 was considered likely (1.0% vs 6.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in London, we saw a dramatic rise in the incidence of OHCA, accompanied by a significant reduction in survival. The pattern of increased incidence and mortality closely reflected the rise in confirmed COVID-19 infections in the city.

RECOVERY- Respiratory Support: Respiratory Strategies for patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 respiratory failure; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, High-flow Nasal Oxygen, and standard care: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The trial objective is to determine if Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) or High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is clinically effective compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. TRIAL DESIGN: Adaptive (group-sequential), parallel group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness trial. PARTICIPANTS: The trial is being conducted across approximately 60 hospitals across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Inpatients at participating hospitals are eligible to participate if they have respiratory failure with suspected or proven COVID-19, and meet all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Adults ≥ 18 years; 2) Admitted to hospital with suspected or proven COVID-19; 3) Receiving oxygen with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥0.4 and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤94%; and 4) Plan for escalation to tracheal intubation if needed. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) Planned tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation imminent within 1 hour; 2) Known or clinically apparent pregnancy; 3) Any absolute contraindication to CPAP or HFNO; 4) Decision not to intubate due to ceiling of treatment or withdrawal of treatment anticipated; and 5) Equipment for both CPAP and HFNO not available. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention one: Continuous positive airway pressure delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention two: High-flow nasal oxygen delivered by any device. Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Comparator group: Standard care- oxygen delivered by face mask or nasal cannula (excluding the use of continuous positive airway pressure or high-flow nasal oxygen). Set-up and therapy titration is not protocolised and is delivered in accordance with clinical discretion. Intervention delivery continues up to the point of death, tracheal intubation, or clinical determination that there is no ongoing need (palliation or improvement). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite outcome comprising tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include tracheal intubation rate, time to tracheal intubation, duration of invasive ventilation, mortality rate, time to mortality, length of hospital stay, and length of critical care stay. RANDOMISATION: Participants are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either continuous positive airway pressure, high-flow nasal oxygen or standard care. Due to the challenging environment of study delivery, a specific intervention may not always be available at the hospital site. The study uses two integrated randomisation systems to allow, where required, the site to randomise between all three interventions, between CPAP and standard care, and between HFNO and standard care. System integration ensures maintenance of balance between interventions. Randomisation is performed using a telephone-based interactive voice response system to maintain allocation concealment. The randomisation sequence was computer-generated using the minimisation method. Participant randomisation is stratified by site, gender (M/F), and age (<50, >=50 years). BLINDING (MASKING): The nature of the trial interventions precludes blinding of the researcher, patient and clinical team. Primary and secondary outcomes are all objective outcomes, thereby minimising the risk of detection bias. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): 4002 participants (1334 to be randomized to each of the three study arms) TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 4.0, 29th May 2020. Recruitment began on April 6, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 5, 2021. The trial has been awarded Urgent Public Health status by the National Institute of Health Research on 13th April 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN16912075. Registered 6th April 2020, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16912075 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0, 29th May 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome by Stromal Cell Administration in COVID-19 (REALIST-COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study is to assess the safety of a single intravenous infusion of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Secondary objectives are to determine the effects of MSCs on important clinical outcomes, as described below. TRIAL DESIGN: REALIST COVID 19 is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple blinded trial. PARTICIPANTS: The study will be conducted in Intensive Care Units in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS as defined by the Berlin definition, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and with a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on clinical diagnosis or PCR test will be eligible. Patients will be excluded for the following reasons: more than 72 hours from the onset of ARDS; age < 16 years; patient known to be pregnant; major trauma in previous 5 days; presence of any active malignancy (other than non-melanoma skin cancer); WHO Class III or IV pulmonary hypertension; venous thromboembolism currently receiving anti-coagulation or within the past 3 months; patient receiving extracorporeal life support; severe chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh > 12); Do Not Attempt Resuscitation order in place; treatment withdrawal imminent within 24 hours; prisoners; declined consent; non-English speaking patients or those who do not adequately understand verbal or written information unless an interpreter is available; previously enrolled in the REALIST trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Allogeneic donor CD362 enriched human umbilical cord derived mesenchymal stromal cells (REALIST ORBCEL-C) supplied as sterile, single-use cryopreserved cell suspension of a fixed dose of 400 x106 cells in 40ml volume, to be diluted in Plasma-Lyte 148 to a total volume of 200mls for administration. Comparator (placebo): Plasma-Lyte 148 Solution for Infusion (200mls). The cellular product (REALIST ORBCEL-C) was developed and patented by Orbsen Therapeutics. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is Oxygenation Index (OI) at day 7. Secondary outcomes include: OI at days 4 and 14; respiratory compliance, driving pressure and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (PF ratio) at days 4, 7 and 14; Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at days 4, 7 and 14; extubation and reintubation; ventilation free days at day 28; duration of mechanical ventilation; length of ICU and hospital stay; 28-day and 90-day mortality. RANDOMISATION: After obtaining informed consent, patients will be randomised via a centralised automated 24-hour telephone or web-based randomisation system (CHaRT, Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen). Randomisation will be stratified by recruitment centre and by vasopressor use and patients will be allocated to REALIST ORBCEL-C or placebo control in a 1:1 ratio. BLINDING (MASKING): The investigator, treating physician, other members of the site research team and participants will be blinded. The cell therapy facility and clinical trials pharmacist will be unblinded to facilitate intervention and placebo preparation. The unblinded individuals will keep the treatment information confidential. The infusion bag will be masked at the time of preparation and will be administered via a masked infusion set. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A sample size of 60 patients with 30 patients randomised to the intervention and 30 to the control group. If possible, recruitment will continue beyond 60 patients to provide more accurate and definitive trial results. The total number of patients recruited will depend on the pandemic and be guided by the data monitoring and ethics committee (DMEC). TRIAL STATUS: REALIST Phase 1 completed in January 2020 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was an open label dose escalation study of REALIST ORBCEL-C in patients with ARDS. The COVID-19 pandemic emerged as REALIST Phase 2 was planned to commence and the investigator team decided to repurpose the Phase 2 trial as a COVID-19 specific trial. This decision was discussed and approved by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and DMEC. Submissions were made to the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and MHRA to amend the protocol to a COVID-19 specific patient population and the protocol amendment was accepted by the REC on 27th March 2020 and MHRA on 30th March 2020 respectively. Other protocol changes in this amendment included an increase in the time of onset of ARDS from 48 to 72 hours, inclusion of clinical outcomes as secondary outcomes, the provision of an option for telephone consent, an indicative sample size and provision to continue recruitment beyond this indicative sample size. The current protocol in use is version 4.0 23.03.2020 (Additional file 1). Urgent Public Health status was awarded by the NIHR on 2 April 2020 and the trial opened to recruitment and recruited the first participant the same day. At the time of publication the trial was open to recruitment at 5 sites across the UK (Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, King's College London, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital London, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham) and 12 patients have been recruited across these sites. Additional sites are planned to open and appropriate approvals for these are being obtained. It is estimated recruitment will continue for 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143 (Registered 3 Feb 2017). EudraCT 2017-000585-33 (Registered 28 Nov 2017). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0 23.03.2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

COVID-19 in cardiac arrest and infection risk to rescuers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There may be a risk of COVID-19 transmission to rescuers delivering treatment for cardiac arrest. The aim of this review was to identify the potential risk of transmission associated with key interventions (chest compressions, defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) to inform international treatment recommendations. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review comprising three questions: (1) aerosol generation associated with key interventions; (2) risk of airborne infection transmission associated with key interventions; and (3) the effect of different personal protective equipment strategies. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database on 24th March 2020. Eligibility criteria were developed individually for each question. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies, and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty by outcome. RESULTS: We included eleven studies: two cohort studies, one case control study, five case reports, and three manikin randomised controlled trials. We did not find any direct evidence that chest compressions or defibrillation either are or are not associated with aerosol generation or transmission of infection. Data from manikin studies indicates that donning of personal protective equipment delays treatment delivery. Studies provided only indirect evidence, with no study describing patients with COVID-19. Evidence certainty was low or very low for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is uncertain whether chest compressions or defibrillation cause aerosol generation or transmission of COVID-19 to rescuers. There is very limited evidence and a rapid need for further studies. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175594.