Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
1.
Trials ; 23(1): 424, 2022 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1854863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably disrupted nearly all aspects of daily life, including healthcare delivery and clinical research. Because pragmatic clinical trials are often embedded within healthcare delivery systems, they may be at high risk of disruption due to the dual impacts on the conduct of both care and research. METHODS: We collected qualitative data using multiple methods to characterize the impact of COVID-19 on the research activities of 14 active pragmatic clinical trials in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. A COVID-19 impact questionnaire was administered electronically to principal investigators in June 2020. Text responses were analyzed thematically, and qualitative summaries were subsequently reviewed by five independent reviewers, who made iterative revisions. Additional COVID-19-related impacts were identified during virtual meetings with trial teams during April-July 2020 and combined with questionnaire responses for analysis. RESULTS: Impacts of the pandemic were broadly classified into two main types: healthcare operations and social distancing. In some instances, trial delays created statistical challenges, particularly with trials using stepped-wedge designs, and necessitated changing data collection strategies or modifying interventions. The majority of projects used existing stakeholder-driven approaches to adapt interventions. Several benefits of these adaptions were identified, including expanded outreach capabilities and ability to study virtual intervention delivery. All trial teams were able to adapt to pandemic-related modifications. CONCLUSION: In a group of 14 ongoing pragmatic clinical trials, there was significant impact of COVID-19 on trial activities. Engaging appropriate stakeholders was critical to designing and implementing trial modifications and making continued safe progress toward meeting research objectives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pandemics , United States/epidemiology
2.
EClinicalMedicine ; 45: 101314, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1828404

ABSTRACT

Background: The extent to which healthcare worker (HCWs) experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic vary by race or ethnicity after adjustment for confounding factors is not currently known. Methods: We performed an observational prospective cohort study of 24,769 healthcare workers from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, enrolled between April 10, 2020 and June 30, 2021, and evaluated participant experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including testing, diagnosis with COVID-19, emotional experiences, burnout, and interest in vaccines and vaccine clinical trials. Findings: After adjustment for professional role, medical history, and community characteristics, Black and Asian participants were less likely to receive SARS-CoV-2 viral testing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·82 [0·70, 0·96], p=0·012 and aOR 0·77 [0·67, 0·89], p<0·001 respectively) than White participants. Hispanic participants were more likely to have evidence of COVID-19 infection (aOR 1·23 (1·00, 1·50, p=0·048). Black and Asian participants were less likely to report interest in a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 0·11 [0·05, 0·25], p<0·001 and aOR 0·48 [0·27, 0·85] p=0·012). Black participants were less likely to report interest in participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial (aOR = 0·39 [0·28, 0·54], p<0·001). Black participants were also less likely to report 3 or more daily emotional impacts of COVID-19 (aOR = 0·66 [0·53, 0·82], p=<0·001). Black participants were additionally less likely to report burnout (aOR = 0·66 ([0·49, 0·95], p=0·025). Interpretation: In a large, national study of healthcare workers, after adjustment for individual and community characteristics, race/ethnicity disparities in COVID-19 outcomes persist. Future work is urgently needed to understand precise mechanisms behind these disparities and to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve health equity for healthcare workers. Funding: This work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Contract # COVID-19-2020-001.

3.
EClinicalMedicine ; 45:101314-101314, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1728302

ABSTRACT

Background The extent to which healthcare worker (HCWs) experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic vary by race or ethnicity after adjustment for confounding factors is not currently known. Methods We performed an observational prospective cohort study of 24,769 healthcare workers from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, enrolled between April 10, 2020 and June 30, 2021, and evaluated participant experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including testing, diagnosis with COVID-19, emotional experiences, burnout, and interest in vaccines and vaccine clinical trials. Findings After adjustment for professional role, medical history, and community characteristics, Black and Asian participants were less likely to receive SARS-CoV-2 viral testing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·82 [0·70, 0·96], p=0·012 and aOR 0·77 [0·67, 0·89], p<0·001 respectively) than White participants. Hispanic participants were more likely to have evidence of COVID-19 infection (aOR 1·23 (1·00, 1·50, p=0·048). Black and Asian participants were less likely to report interest in a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 0·11 [0·05, 0·25], p<0·001 and aOR 0·48 [0·27, 0·85] p=0·012). Black participants were less likely to report interest in participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial (aOR = 0·39 [0·28, 0·54], p<0·001). Black participants were also less likely to report 3 or more daily emotional impacts of COVID-19 (aOR = 0·66 [0·53, 0·82], p=<0·001). Black participants were additionally less likely to report burnout (aOR = 0·66 ([0·49, 0·95], p=0·025). Interpretation In a large, national study of healthcare workers, after adjustment for individual and community characteristics, race/ethnicity disparities in COVID-19 outcomes persist. Future work is urgently needed to understand precise mechanisms behind these disparities and to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve health equity for healthcare workers. Funding This work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Contract # COVID-19-2020-001.

4.
Circulation ; 144(23): e461-e471, 2021 12 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666518

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had worldwide repercussions for health care and research. In spring 2020, most non-COVID-19 research was halted, hindering research across the spectrum from laboratory-based experimental science to clinical research. Through the second half of 2020 and the first half of 2021, biomedical research, including cardiovascular science, only gradually restarted, with many restrictions on onsite activities, limited clinical research participation, and the challenges associated with working from home and caregiver responsibilities. Compounding these impediments, much of the global biomedical research infrastructure was redirected toward vaccine testing and deployment. This redirection of supply chains, personnel, and equipment has additionally hampered restoration of normal research activity. Transition to virtual interactions offset some of these limitations but did not adequately replace the need for scientific exchange and collaboration. Here, we outline key steps to reinvigorate biomedical research, including a call for increased support from the National Institutes of Health. We also call on academic institutions, publishers, reviewers, and supervisors to consider the impact of COVID-19 when assessing productivity, recognizing that the pandemic did not affect all equally. We identify trainees and junior investigators, especially those with caregiving roles, as most at risk of being lost from the biomedical workforce and identify steps to reduce the loss of these key investigators. Although the global pandemic highlighted the power of biomedical science to define, treat, and protect against threats to human health, significant investment in the biomedical workforce is required to maintain and promote well-being.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19 , Cardiology/trends , Research Design/trends , Research Personnel/trends , Advisory Committees , American Heart Association , Biomedical Research/education , Cardiology/education , Diffusion of Innovation , Education, Professional/trends , Forecasting , Humans , Public Opinion , Research Personnel/education , Time Factors , United States
5.
JAMA Cardiol ; 7(1): 17-25, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1499191

ABSTRACT

Importance: The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population. Objective: To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy. Results: Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.


Subject(s)
Aminobutyrates/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Biphenyl Compounds/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Valsartan/therapeutic use , Biomarkers/blood , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Female , Heart Failure/blood , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Natriuretic Peptide, Brain/blood , Peptide Fragments/blood , Stroke Volume
6.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 109: 106525, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347516

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS CoV-2 virus has caused one of the deadliest pandemics in recent history, resulting in over 170 million deaths and global economic disruption. There remains an urgent need for clinical trials to test therapies for treatment and prevention. DESIGN: An online research platform was created to support a registry community of healthcare workers (HCWs) to understand their experiences and conduct clinical studies to address their concerns. The first study, HERO-HCQ, was a double-blind, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic trial to evaluate the superiority of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) vs placebo for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of COVID-19 clinical infection in HCWs. Secondary objectives were to assess the efficacy of HCQ in preventing viral shedding of COVID-19 among HCWs and to assess the safety and tolerability of HCQ. METHODS: HCWs joined the Registry and were pre-screened for trial interest and eligibility. Trial participants were randomized 1:1 to receive HCQ or placebo. On-site baseline assessment included a COVID-19 nasopharyngeal PCR and blood serology test. Weekly follow-up was done via an online portal and included screening for symptoms of COVID-19, self-reported testing, adverse events, and quality of life assessments. The on-site visit was repeated at Day 30. DISCUSSION: The HERO research platform offers an approach to rapidly engage, screen, invite and enroll into clinical studies using a novel participant-facing online portal interface and remote data collection, enabling limited onsite procedures for conduct of a pragmatic clinical trial. This platform may be an example for future clinical trials of common conditions to enable more rapid evidence generation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
8.
ESC Heart Fail ; 8(5): 4026-4036, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286110

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Implantable device-based sensor measurements including heart sounds, markers of ventilation, and thoracic impedance have been shown to predict heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. We sought to assess how these parameters changed prior to COVID-19 (Cov-19) and how these compared with those presenting with decompensated HF or pneumonia. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective analysis explores patterns of changes in daily measurements by implantable sensors in 10 patients with Cov-19 and compares these findings with those observed prior to HF (n = 88) and pneumonia (n = 12) hospitalizations from the MultiSENSE, PREEMPT-HF, and MANAGE-HF trials. The earliest sensor changes prior to Cov-19 were observed in respiratory rate (6 days) and temperature (5 days). There was a three-fold to four-fold greater increase in respiratory rate, rapid shallow breathing index, and night heart rate compared with those presenting with HF or pneumonia. Furthermore, activity levels fell more in those presenting with Cov-19, a change that was often sustained for some time. In contrast, there were no significant changes in 1st or 3rd heart sound (S1 and S3 ) amplitude in those presenting with Cov-19 or pneumonia compared with the known changes that occur in HF decompensation. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-sensor device diagnostics may provide early detection of Cov-19, distinguishable from worsening HF by an extreme and fast rise in respiratory rate along with no changes in S3.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Journal of Clinical Investigation ; 131(2):1-3, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1172788

ABSTRACT

The impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic is placing tremendous pressure on government and the biomedical research enterprise to quickly develop safe, effective therapies and move them into practice. Here, Califf et al examine which treatments and strategies work, both for individuals and populations.

10.
J Gen Intern Med ; 36(5): 1319-1326, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1126603

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The HERO registry was established to support research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE: Describe the COVID-19 pandemic experiences of and effects on individuals participating in the HERO registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-administered registry enrollment survey conducted from April 10 to July 31, 2020. SETTING: Participants worked in hospitals (74.4%), outpatient clinics (7.4%), and other settings (18.2%) located throughout the nation. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14,600 healthcare workers. MAIN MEASURES: COVID-19 exposure, viral and antibody testing, diagnosis of COVID-19, job burnout, and physical and emotional distress. KEY RESULTS: Mean age was 42.0 years, 76.4% were female, 78.9% were White, 33.2% were nurses, 18.4% were physicians, and 30.3% worked in settings at high risk for COVID-19 exposure (e.g., ICUs, EDs, COVID-19 units). Overall, 43.7% reported a COVID-19 exposure and 91.3% were exposed at work. Just 3.8% in both high- and low-risk settings experienced COVID-19 illness. In regression analyses controlling for demographics, professional role, and work setting, the risk of COVID-19 illness was higher for Black/African-Americans (aOR 2.32, 99% CI 1.45, 3.70, p < 0.01) and Hispanic/Latinos (aOR 2.19, 99% CI 1.55, 3.08, p < 0.01) compared with Whites. Overall, 41% responded that they were experiencing job burnout. Responding about the day before they completed the survey, 53% of participants reported feeling tired a lot of the day, 51% stress, 41% trouble sleeping, 38% worry, 21% sadness, 19% physical pain, and 15% anger. On average, healthcare workers reported experiencing 2.4 of these 7 distress feelings a lot of the day. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are at high risk for COVID-19 exposure, but rates of COVID-19 illness were low. The greater risk of COVID-19 infection among race/ethnicity minorities reported in the general population is also seen in healthcare workers. The HERO registry will continue to monitor changes in healthcare worker well-being during the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04342806.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Registries , SARS-CoV-2
14.
JACC Heart Fail ; 8(10): 789-799, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-816609

ABSTRACT

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).


Subject(s)
Aminobutyrates/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Tetrazoles/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Biphenyl Compounds , COVID-19 , Cardiotonic Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Heart Failure/metabolism , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Heart Transplantation , Heart-Assist Devices , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypotension/chemically induced , Natriuretic Peptide, Brain/metabolism , Pandemics , Peptide Fragments/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke Volume , Valsartan
17.
Eur Heart J ; 41(22): 2109-2117, 2020 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-526858

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Coronavirus Infections , Heart Failure , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Research Design/standards , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Europe , Heart Failure/complications , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/standards , Patient Safety , Patient Selection/ethics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL