Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
BMJ ; 376: e068585, 2022 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759319

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19. DESIGN: Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care. CONCLUSION: Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Middle Aged , Patient Positioning , Prone Position
2.
CMAJ ; 194(7): E242-E251, 2022 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714791

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Aged , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Canada/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-322458

ABSTRACT

Background: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a well-established strategy for the prevention of infectious diseases, in which recently exposed people take a short course of medication to prevent infection. The primary objective of the COVID-19 Ring-based Prevention Trial with lopinavir/ritonavir (CORIPREV-LR) is to evaluate the efficacy of a 14-day course of oral lopinavir/ritonavir as PEP against COVID-19 among individuals with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed case. Methods: : This is an open-label, multicenter, 1:1 cluster-randomized trial of LPV/r versus no intervention, using an adaptive approach to sample size calculation. Participants will be individuals aged >6 months with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case within the past 7 days. A combination of remote and in-person study visits at days 1, 7, 14, 35 and 90 include comprehensive epidemiological, clinical, microbiologic and serologic sampling. The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days after exposure, defined as a positive respiratory tract specimen for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction. Secondary outcomes include safety, symptomatic COVID-19, seropositivity, hospitalization, respiratory failure requiring ventilator support, mortality, psychological impact, and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will examine the impact of LPV/r on these outcomes in the subset of participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. To detect a relative risk reduction of 40% with 80% power at α=0.05, assuming p 0 =15%, 5 contacts per case and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.05, we require 110 clusters per arm, or 220 clusters overall and approximately 1220 enrollees after accounting for 10% loss-to-follow-up. We will modify the sample size target after 60 clusters, based on preliminary estimates of p0, ICC and cluster size and consider switching to an alternative drug after interim analyses and as new data emerges. The primary analysis will be a generalized linear mixed model with logit link to estimate the effect of LPV/r on the probability of infection. Discussion: Harnessing safe, existing drugs such as LPV/r as PEP could provide an important tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel aspects of our design include the ring-based prevention approach, and the incorporation of remote strategies for conducting study visits and biospecimen collection. Trial registration: This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04321174) on March 25, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04321174

5.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Trials ; 22(1): 224, 2021 Mar 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1147039

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a well-established strategy for the prevention of infectious diseases, in which recently exposed people take a short course of medication to prevent infection. The primary objective of the COVID-19 Ring-based Prevention Trial with lopinavir/ritonavir (CORIPREV-LR) is to evaluate the efficacy of a 14-day course of oral lopinavir/ritonavir as PEP against COVID-19 among individuals with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed case. METHODS: This is an open-label, multicenter, 1:1 cluster-randomized trial of LPV/r 800/200 mg twice daily for 14 days (intervention arm) versus no intervention (control arm), using an adaptive approach to sample size calculation. Participants will be individuals aged > 6 months with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case within the past 7 days. A combination of remote and in-person study visits at days 1, 7, 14, 35, and 90 includes comprehensive epidemiological, clinical, microbiologic, and serologic sampling. The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days after exposure, defined as a positive respiratory tract specimen for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction. Secondary outcomes include safety, symptomatic COVID-19, seropositivity, hospitalization, respiratory failure requiring ventilator support, mortality, psychological impact, and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will examine the impact of LPV/r on these outcomes in the subset of participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. To detect a relative risk reduction of 40% with 80% power at α = 0.05, assuming the secondary attack rate in ring members (p0) = 15%, 5 contacts per case and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.05, we require 110 clusters per arm, or 220 clusters overall and approximately 1220 enrollees after accounting for 10% loss-to-follow-up. We will modify the sample size target after 60 clusters, based on preliminary estimates of p0, ICC, and cluster size and consider switching to an alternative drug after interim analyses and as new data emerges. The primary analysis will be a generalized linear mixed model with logit link to estimate the effect of LPV/r on the probability of infection. Participants who test positive at baseline will be excluded from the primary analysis but will be maintained for additional analyses to examine the impact of LPV/r on early treatment. DISCUSSION: Harnessing safe, existing drugs such as LPV/r as PEP could provide an important tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel aspects of our design include the ring-based prevention approach, and the incorporation of remote strategies for conducting study visits and biospecimen collection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04321174 ) on March 25, 2020.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , Drug Combinations , Hospitalization , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
7.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(3): 282-291, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1092644

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care/trends , Pandemics , Critical Care/organization & administration , Disaster Planning , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Monitoring, Physiologic/instrumentation , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Personal Protective Equipment , Surge Capacity , Telemedicine , Workflow
8.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(4): e0098, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-320765

ABSTRACT

Although the amount of information generated during this most recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is enormous, much is of uncertain trustworthiness. This review summaries the many potential sources of information that clinicians turn to during pandemic illness, the challenges associated with performing methodologically sound research in this setting and potential approaching to conducting well done research during a health crisis. DATA SOURCES: Not applicable. STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemics and healthcare crises provide extraordinary opportunities for the rapid generation of reliable scientific information but also for misinformation, especially in the early phases, which may contribute to public hysteria. The best way to combat misinformation is with trustworthy data produced by healthcare researchers. Although challenging, research can occur during pandemics and crises and is facilitated by advance planning, governmental support, targeted funding opportunities, and collaboration with industry partners. The coronavirus disease 2019 research response has highlighted both the dangers of misinformation as well as the benefits and possibilities of performing rigorous research during challenging times.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL