Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac219, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931882

ABSTRACT

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

2.
Lancet Respir Med ; 2022 May 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1864689

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

3.
J Thorac Dis ; 13(7): 4137-4145, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344631

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whereas data from the pre-pandemic era have demonstrated that tracheostomy can accelerate liberation from the ventilator, reduce need for sedation, and facilitate rehabilitation, concerns for healthcare worker safety have led to disagreement on tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients. Data on COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy may inform best practices. Thus, we report a retrospective institutional cohort experience with tracheostomy in ventilated patients with COVID-19, examining associations between time to tracheostomy and duration of mechanical ventilation in relation to patient characteristics, clinical course, and survival. METHODS: Clinical data were extracted for all COVID-19 tracheostomies performed at a quaternary referral center from April-July 2020. Outcomes studied included mortality, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to decannulation. RESULTS: Among 64 COVID-19 tracheostomies (13% of COVID-19 hospitalizations), patients were 64% male and 42% African American, with a median age of 54 (range, 20-89). Median time to tracheostomy was 22 (range, 7-60) days and median duration of mechanical ventilation was 39.4 (range, 20-113) days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with shortened mechanical ventilation (R2=0.4, P<0.01). Median decannulation time was 35.3 (range, 7-79) days. There was 19% mortality and adverse events in 45%, mostly from bleeding in therapeutically anticoagulated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy was associated with swifter liberation from the ventilator and acceptable safety for physicians in this series of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patient mortality was not increased relative to historical data on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Future studies are required to establish conclusions of causality regarding tracheostomy timing with mechanical ventilation, complications, or mortality in COVID-19 patients.

4.
JMIR Med Inform ; 9(4): e25066, 2021 Apr 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1200031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented strain on health care facilities across the United States. Accurately identifying patients at an increased risk of deterioration may help hospitals manage their resources while improving the quality of patient care. Here, we present the results of an analytical model, Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events (PICTURE), to identify patients at high risk for imminent intensive care unit transfer, respiratory failure, or death, with the intention to improve the prediction of deterioration due to COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate the PICTURE model's ability to predict unexpected deterioration in general ward and COVID-19 patients, and to compare its performance with the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI), an existing model that has recently been assessed for use in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The PICTURE model was trained and validated on a cohort of hospitalized non-COVID-19 patients using electronic health record data from 2014 to 2018. It was then applied to two holdout test sets: non-COVID-19 patients from 2019 and patients testing positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PICTURE results were aligned to EDI and NEWS scores for head-to-head comparison via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve. We compared the models' ability to predict an adverse event (defined as intensive care unit transfer, mechanical ventilation use, or death). Shapley values were used to provide explanations for PICTURE predictions. RESULTS: In non-COVID-19 general ward patients, PICTURE achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (95% CI 0.805-0.834) per observation, compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.746-0.781; n=21,740; P<.001). In patients testing positive for COVID-19, PICTURE again outperformed the EDI with an AUROC of 0.849 (95% CI 0.820-0.878) compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.803 (95% CI 0.772-0.838; n=607; P<.001). The most important variables influencing PICTURE predictions in the COVID-19 cohort were a rapid respiratory rate, a high level of oxygen support, low oxygen saturation, and impaired mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale). CONCLUSIONS: The PICTURE model is more accurate in predicting adverse patient outcomes for both general ward patients and COVID-19 positive patients in our cohorts compared to the EDI. The ability to consistently anticipate these events may be especially valuable when considering potential incipient waves of COVID-19 infections. The generalizability of the model will require testing in other health care systems for validation.

5.
JMIR Med Inform ; 9(4): e25066, 2021 Apr 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1170048

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented strain on health care facilities across the United States. Accurately identifying patients at an increased risk of deterioration may help hospitals manage their resources while improving the quality of patient care. Here, we present the results of an analytical model, Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events (PICTURE), to identify patients at high risk for imminent intensive care unit transfer, respiratory failure, or death, with the intention to improve the prediction of deterioration due to COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate the PICTURE model's ability to predict unexpected deterioration in general ward and COVID-19 patients, and to compare its performance with the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI), an existing model that has recently been assessed for use in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The PICTURE model was trained and validated on a cohort of hospitalized non-COVID-19 patients using electronic health record data from 2014 to 2018. It was then applied to two holdout test sets: non-COVID-19 patients from 2019 and patients testing positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PICTURE results were aligned to EDI and NEWS scores for head-to-head comparison via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve. We compared the models' ability to predict an adverse event (defined as intensive care unit transfer, mechanical ventilation use, or death). Shapley values were used to provide explanations for PICTURE predictions. RESULTS: In non-COVID-19 general ward patients, PICTURE achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (95% CI 0.805-0.834) per observation, compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.746-0.781; n=21,740; P<.001). In patients testing positive for COVID-19, PICTURE again outperformed the EDI with an AUROC of 0.849 (95% CI 0.820-0.878) compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.803 (95% CI 0.772-0.838; n=607; P<.001). The most important variables influencing PICTURE predictions in the COVID-19 cohort were a rapid respiratory rate, a high level of oxygen support, low oxygen saturation, and impaired mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale). CONCLUSIONS: The PICTURE model is more accurate in predicting adverse patient outcomes for both general ward patients and COVID-19 positive patients in our cohorts compared to the EDI. The ability to consistently anticipate these events may be especially valuable when considering potential incipient waves of COVID-19 infections. The generalizability of the model will require testing in other health care systems for validation.

6.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(16): 2187-2190, 2020 11 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1153163

ABSTRACT

Clinicians, eager to offer the best care in the absence of guiding data, have provided patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diverse clinical interventions. This usage has led to perceptions of efficacy of some interventions that, while receiving media coverage, lack robust evidence. Moving forward, randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to ensure that clinicians can treat patients effectively during this outbreak and the next. To do so, academic medical centers must address 2 key research issues: (1) how to effectively and efficiently determine which trials have the best chance of benefiting current and future patients and (2) how to establish a transparent and ethical process for subject recruitment while maintaining research integrity and without overburdening patients or staff. We share here the current methods used by Michigan Medicine to address these issues.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/therapy , Patient Selection/ethics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Humans , Informed Consent , Michigan , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
7.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 106, 2021 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136238

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Humans
8.
JAMA ; 324(21): 2165-2176, 2020 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-978083

ABSTRACT

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Failure
9.
N Engl J Med ; 383(20): 1907-1919, 2020 11 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-920642

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Appendectomy , Appendicitis/drug therapy , Appendicitis/surgery , Appendix/surgery , Absenteeism , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Appendectomy/statistics & numerical data , Appendicitis/complications , Appendix/pathology , Fecal Impaction , Female , Health Status , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Laparoscopy , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Quality of Life , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome
10.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 17(9): 1144-1153, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781684

ABSTRACT

The ORCHID (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease) trial is a multicenter, blinded, randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This document provides the rationale and background for the trial and highlights key design features. We discuss five novel challenges to the design and conduct of a large, multicenter, randomized trial during a pandemic, including 1) widespread, off-label use of the study drug before the availability of safety and efficacy data; 2) the need to adapt traditional procedures for documentation of informed consent during an infectious pandemic; 3) developing a flexible and robust Bayesian analysis incorporating significant uncertainty about the disease, outcomes, and treatment; 4) obtaining indistinguishable drug and placebo without delaying enrollment; and 5) rapidly obtaining administrative and regulatory approvals. Our goals in describing how the ORCHID trial progressed from study conception to enrollment of the first patient in 15 days are to inform the development of other high-quality, multicenter trials targeting COVID-19. We describe lessons learned to improve the efficiency of future clinical trials, particularly in the setting of pandemics. The ORCHID trial will provide high-quality, clinically relevant data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04332991).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Antimalarials/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL