Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 34
Filter
2.
Trials ; 23(1): 401, 2022 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846859

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mesenchymal Stem Cells , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
Chest ; 2021 Nov 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1828073

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is no pharmacologic treatment for ARDS. Platelets play an important role in the pathophysiology of ARDS. Preclinical, observational, and clinically relevant models of ARDS indicate aspirin as a potential therapeutic option. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is enteral aspirin (75 mg, once daily) safe and effective in improving surrogate outcomes in adult patients with ARDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind (patient and investigator), allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial was conducted in five UK ICUs. Patients fulfilling the Berlin definition of ARDS were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive enteral aspirin (75 mg) or placebo, for a maximum of 14 days, using a computer-generated randomization schedule, with variable block size, stratified by vasopressor requirement. The primary end point was oxygenation index (OI) on day 7. Secondary outcomes included safety parameters and other respiratory physiological markers. Analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early, due to slow recruitment, after 49 of a planned 60 patients were recruited. Twenty-four patients were allocated to aspirin and 25 to placebo. There was no significant difference in day 7 OI [aspirin group: unadjusted mean, 54.4 (SD 26.8); placebo group: 42.4 (SD 25); mean difference, 12.0; 95% CI, -6.1 to 30.1; P = .19]. Aspirin did not significantly impact the secondary outcomes. There was no difference in the number of adverse events between the groups (13 in each; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.56-1.94; P = .56). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin was well tolerated but did not improve OI or other physiological outcomes; a larger trial is not feasible in its current design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02326350; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

4.
JAMA ; 327(13): 1247-1259, 2022 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/adverse effects , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology
5.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 404, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745432

ABSTRACT

Identifying new effective treatments for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including COVID-19 ARDS, remains a challenge. The field of ARDS investigation is moving increasingly toward innovative approaches such as the personalization of therapy to biological and clinical sub-phenotypes. Additionally, there is growing recognition of the importance of the global context to identify effective ARDS treatments. This review highlights emerging opportunities and continued challenges for personalizing therapy for ARDS, from identifying treatable traits to innovative clinical trial design and recognition of patient-level factors as the field of critical care investigation moves forward into the twenty-first century.


Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology
6.
JAMA ; 327(6): 546-558, 2022 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1711978

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology
7.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(1): 107-120, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591647

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.


Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19 , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
10.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 404, 2021 11 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533274

ABSTRACT

Identifying new effective treatments for the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including COVID-19 ARDS, remains a challenge. The field of ARDS investigation is moving increasingly toward innovative approaches such as the personalization of therapy to biological and clinical sub-phenotypes. Additionally, there is growing recognition of the importance of the global context to identify effective ARDS treatments. This review highlights emerging opportunities and continued challenges for personalizing therapy for ARDS, from identifying treatable traits to innovative clinical trial design and recognition of patient-level factors as the field of critical care investigation moves forward into the twenty-first century.


Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology
11.
Thorax ; 77(3): 259-267, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505012

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Humans , RNA, Viral
13.
EClinicalMedicine ; 41: 101167, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1473282

ABSTRACT

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.

14.
JAMA ; 326(11): 1013-1023, 2021 09 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441906

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Carbon Dioxide/blood , Extracorporeal Circulation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Extracorporeal Circulation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Tidal Volume
15.
Encyclopedia of Respiratory Medicine (Second Edition) ; : 267-278, 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1414431

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a prevalent and important cause of respiratory failure. Underlying causes include pulmonary and non-pulmonary aetiologies. ARDS is acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure associated with non-cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, reduced pulmonary compliance, and can lead to lung fibrosis. In addition to treating the underlying cause, often the mainstay of the management of ARDS is invasive mechanical ventilation. This can perpetuate lung injury—ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI). Despite recent advances in our understanding of this, ARDS-associated morbidity and mortality remains high. This chapter discusses the pathophysiology of ARDS and its management, including mechanical ventilation, adjunctive therapies, and some recently trialed pharmacotherapies.

16.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 589553, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1383857

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the elderly population (≥65 years of age). Additionally, age is widely reported as a risk factor for the development of ARDS. However, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms behind the increased risk of developing, and increased severity of, ARDS in the elderly population are not fully understood. This is compounded by the significant heterogeneity observed in patients with ARDS. With an aging population worldwide, a better understanding of these mechanisms could facilitate the development of therapies to improve outcomes in this population. In this review, the current clinical evidence of age as a risk factor and prognostic indicator in ARDS and the potential underlying mechanisms that may contribute to these factors are outlined. In addition, research on age-dependent treatment options and biomarkers, as well as future prospects for targeting these underlying mechanisms, are discussed.

18.
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
20.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(10): 1144-1147, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1287425
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL