Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
International Journal of Infectious Diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-2165388

ABSTRACT

Background Effective and widely available therapies are still needed for outpatients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for early treatment of non-hospitalized individuals diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-site decentralized clinical trial enrolled non-hospitalized adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and six or fewer days of acute respiratory infection symptoms who were randomized to either twice daily oral lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg) or placebo for 14 days. Daily surveys on study days 1 through 16 and again on study day 28 evaluated symptoms, daily activities, and hospitalization status. The primary outcome was longitudinal change in an ordinal scale based on combination of symptoms, activity, and hospitalization status through Day 15 and was analyzed by use of a Bayesian longitudinal proportional odds logistic regression model for estimating the probability of a superior recovery for lopinavir/ritonavir over placebo (odds ratio [OR]>1). Results Between June 2020 and December 2021, 448 participants were randomized to receive either lopinavir/ritonavir (n=216) or placebo (n=221). The mean symptom duration prior to randomization was 4.3 days [SD 1.3]. There were no differences between treatment groups through the first 15 days for the ordinal primary outcome (OR 0.96;95% CrI: 0.66 to 1.41). There were 3.2% (n=7) of lopinavir/ritonavir and 2.7% (n=6) of placebo participants hospitalized by day 28. Serious adverse events did not differ between groups. Conclusions Lopinavir/ritonavir did not significantly improve symptom resolution or reduce hospitalization in non-hospitalized participants with COVID-19. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04372628

2.
Trials ; 23(1): 273, 2022 Apr 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098437

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a heterogeneous outcome in individuals from remaining asymptomatic to death. In a majority of cases, mild symptoms are present that do not require hospitalization and can be successfully treated in the outpatient setting, though symptoms may persist for a long duration. We hypothesize that drugs suitable for decentralized study in outpatients will have efficacy among infected outpatients METHODS: The TREAT NOW platform is designed to accommodate testing multiple agents with the ability to incorporate new agents in the future. TREAT NOW is an adaptive, blinded, multi-center, placebo-controlled superiority randomized clinical trial which started with two active therapies (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir) and placebo, with the hydroxychloroquine arm dropped shortly after enrollment began due to external evidence. Each arm has a target enrollment of 300 participants who will be randomly assigned in an equal allocation to receive either an active therapy or placebo twice daily for 14 days with daily electronic surveys collected over days 1 through 16 and on day 29 to evaluate symptoms and a modified COVID-19 ordinal outcome scale. Participants are enrolled remotely by telephone and consented with a digital interface, study drug is overnight mailed to study participants, and data collection occurs electronically without in-person interactions. DISCUSSION: If effective treatments for COVID-19 can be identified for individuals in the outpatient setting before they advance to severe disease, it will prevent progression to more severe disease, reduce the need for hospitalization, and shorten the duration of symptoms. The novel decentralized, "no touch" approach used by the TREAT NOW platform has distinction advantages over traditional in-person trials to reach broader populations and perform study procedures in a pragmatic yet rigorous manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04372628. Registered on April 30, 2020. First posted on May 4, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Outpatients , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
Chest ; 2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2095160

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone position ventilation (PPV) is resource-intensive, yet the optimal strategy for PPV in intubated patients with COVID-19 is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a prolonged (24 or more hours) PPV strategy improve mortality in intubated COVID-19 patients compared to intermittent (∼16 hours with daily supination) PPV? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of consecutively admitted intubated COVID-19 patients treated with PPV between March 11 - May 31, 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 90-day all-cause mortality and prone-related complications. Inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) were used to control for potential treatment selection bias. RESULTS: Of the COVID-19 patients who received PPV, 157 underwent prolonged and 110 underwent intermittent PPV. Patients undergoing prolonged PPV had reduced 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.475, 95% CI 0.336-0.670, P value < 0.001) and 90-day (aHR 0.638, 95% CI 0.461-0.883, P value = 0.006) mortality compared to intermittent PPV. In patients with PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 150 at the time of pronation, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced 30-day (aHR 0.357, 95% CI 0.213-0.597, P value < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (aHR 0.562, 95% CI 0.357-0.884, P value = 0.008). Patients treated with prolonged PPV underwent fewer pronation and supination events (median 1, 95% CI 1-2 versus 3, 95% CI 1-4, P value < 0.001). PPV strategy was not associated with overall PPV-related complications though patients receiving prolonged PPV had increased rates of facial edema and lower rates of peri-proning hypotension. INTERPRETATION: Among intubated COVID-19 patients who received PPV, prolonged PPV was associated with reduced mortality. Prolonged PPV was associated with fewer pronation and supination events and a small increase in rates of facial edema. These findings suggest that prolonged PPV is a safe, effective strategy for mortality reduction in intubated COVID-19 patients.

4.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(10): 1401-1410, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2080840

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Nucleocapsid , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Med (N Y) ; 3(8): 531-537, 2022 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1983656

ABSTRACT

The protection provided by natural versus hybrid immunity from COVID-19 is unclear. We reflect on the challenges from trying to conduct a randomized post-SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccination trial study with rapidly evolving scientific data, vaccination guidelines, varying international policies, difficulties with vaccine availability, vaccine hesitancy, and a constantly evolving virus.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccination , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Inpatients , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vaccination/methods
6.
Nat Med ; 28(6): 1141-1148, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1900513

ABSTRACT

Research and practice in critical care medicine have long been defined by syndromes, which, despite being clinically recognizable entities, are, in fact, loose amalgams of heterogeneous states that may respond differently to therapy. Mounting translational evidence-supported by research on respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-suggests that the current syndrome-based framework of critical illness should be reconsidered. Here we discuss recent findings from basic science and clinical research in critical care and explore how these might inform a new conceptual model of critical illness. De-emphasizing syndromes, we focus on the underlying biological changes that underpin critical illness states and that may be amenable to treatment. We hypothesize that such an approach will accelerate critical care research, leading to a richer understanding of the pathobiology of critical illness and of the key determinants of patient outcomes. This, in turn, will support the design of more effective clinical trials and inform a more precise and more effective practice at the bedside.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Critical Care , Critical Illness , Humans , Syndrome
7.
JCI Insight ; 7(9)2022 05 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1868830

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe value of the soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGE) as a biomarker in COVID-19 is not well understood. We tested the association between plasma sRAGE and illness severity, viral burden, and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who were not mechanically ventilated.MethodsBaseline sRAGE was measured among participants enrolled in the ACTIV-3/TICO trial of bamlanivimab for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between sRAGE and other plasma biomarkers, including viral nucleocapsid antigen. Fine-Gray models adjusted for baseline supplemental oxygen requirement, antigen level, positive endogenous anti-nucleocapsid antibody response, sex, age, BMI, diabetes mellitus, renal impairment, corticosteroid treatment, and log2-transformed IL-6 level were used to assess the association between baseline sRAGE and time to sustained recovery. Cox regression adjusted for the same factors was used to assess the association between sRAGE and mortality.ResultsAmong 277 participants, baseline sRAGE was strongly correlated with viral plasma antigen concentration (ρ = 0.57). There was a weaker correlation between sRAGE and biomarkers of systemic inflammation, such as IL-6 (ρ = 0.36) and CRP (ρ = 0.20). Participants with plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile had a significantly lower rate of sustained recovery (adjusted recovery rate ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.90]) and a higher unadjusted risk of death (HR, 4.70 [95% CI, 2.01-10.99]) compared with participants in the lower quartiles.ConclusionElevated plasma sRAGE in hospitalized, nonventilated patients with COVID-19 was an indicator of both clinical illness severity and plasma viral load. Plasma sRAGE in the highest quartile was associated with a lower likelihood of sustained recovery and higher unadjusted risk of death. These findings, which we believe to be novel, indicate that plasma sRAGE may be a promising biomarker for COVID-19 prognostication and clinical trial enrichment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04501978.FundingNIH (5T32GM008440-24, 18X107CF6, HHSN261201500003I, R35HL140026, and OT2HL156812).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Biomarkers , Humans , Interleukin-6 , Prognosis , Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products
9.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 206(6): 730-739, 2022 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846615

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aftercare , Aged , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Humans , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
10.
Chest ; 162(4): 804-814, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1814242

ABSTRACT

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.


Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury , COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Oxygen , Pandemics
11.
Am J Crit Care ; 31(2): 146-157, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1737135

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding COVID-19 epidemiology is crucial to clinical care and to clinical trial design and interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 early in the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 57 US hospitals from March 1 to April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Of 1480 inpatients with COVID-19, median (IQR) age was 62.0 (49.4-72.9) years, 649 (43.9%) were female, and 822 of 1338 (61.4%) were non-White or Hispanic/Latino. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 575 patients (38.9%), mostly within 4 days of hospital presentation. Respiratory failure affected 583 patients (39.4%), including 284 (19.2%) within 24 hours of hospital presentation and 413 (27.9%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 8 (5-15) days overall and 15 (9-24) days among intensive care unit patients. Hospital mortality was 17.7% (n = 262). Risk factors for hospital death identified by penalized multivariable regression included older age; male sex; comorbidity burden; symptoms-to-admission interval; hypotension; hypoxemia; and higher white blood cell count, creatinine level, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Of 1218 survivors, 221 (18.1%) required new respiratory support at discharge and 259 of 1153 (22.5%) admitted from home required new health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In a geographically diverse early-pandemic COVID-19 cohort with complete hospital folllow-up, hospital mortality was associated with older age, comorbidity burden, and male sex. Intensive care unit admissions occurred early and were associated with protracted hospital stays. Survivors often required new health care services or respiratory support at discharge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
12.
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
13.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(5): 507-519, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560818

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Alveolar and endothelial injury may be differentially associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity over time. Objectives: To describe alveolar and endothelial injury dynamics and associations with COVID-19 severity, cardiorenovascular injury, and outcomes. Methods: This single-center observational study enrolled patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support at emergency department presentation. More than 40 markers of alveolar (including receptor for advanced glycation endproducts [RAGE]), endothelial (including angiopoietin-2), and cardiorenovascular injury (including renin, kidney injury molecule-1, and troponin-I) were serially compared between invasively and spontaneously ventilated patients using mixed-effects repeated-measures models. Ventilatory ratios were calculated for intubated patients. Associations of biomarkers with modified World Health Organization scale at Day 28 were determined with multivariable proportional-odds regression. Measurements and Main Results: Of 225 patients, 74 (33%) received invasive ventilation at Day 0. RAGE was 1.80-fold higher in invasive ventilation patients at Day 0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.17) versus spontaneous ventilation, but decreased over time in all patients. Changes in alveolar markers did not correlate with changes in endothelial, cardiac, or renal injury markers. In contrast, endothelial markers were similar to lower at Day 0 for invasive ventilation versus spontaneous ventilation, but then increased over time only among intubated patients. In intubated patients, angiopoietin-2 was similar (fold difference, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17) to nonintubated patients at Day 0 but 1.80-fold higher (95% CI, 1.56-2.06) at Day 3; cardiorenovascular injury markers showed similar patterns. Endothelial markers were not consistently associated with ventilatory ratios. Endothelial markers were more often significantly associated with 28-day outcomes than alveolar markers. Conclusions: Alveolar injury markers increase early. Endothelial injury markers increase later and are associated with cardiorenovascular injury and 28-day outcome. Alveolar and endothelial injury likely contribute at different times to disease progression in severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Alveolar Epithelial Cells , COVID-19/physiopathology , Endothelium/injuries , Patient Acuity , Pulmonary Alveoli/injuries , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/analysis , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Renin-Angiotensin System , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
15.
J Crit Care ; 64: 160-164, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1479628

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). MATERIALS/METHODS: In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. RESULTS: Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Survivors , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Mental Recall , Patient Discharge , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Survivors/psychology
16.
Clin Trials ; 19(1): 52-61, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463193

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Safe and effective therapies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. In order to meet this need, the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines public-private partnership initiated the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 is a multi-arm, multi-stage platform master protocol, which facilitates the rapid evaluation of the safety and efficacy of novel candidate antiviral therapeutic agents for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Five agents have so far entered the protocol, with rapid answers already provided for three of these. Other agents are expected to enter the protocol throughout 2021. This protocol contains a number of key design and implementation features that, along with challenges faced by the protocol team, are presented and discussed. METHODS: Three clinical trial networks, encompassing a global network of clinical sites, participated in the protocol development and implementation. Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 utilizes a multi-arm, multi-stage design with an agile and robust approach to futility and safety evaluation at 300 patients enrolled, with subsequent expansion to full sample size and an expanded target population if the agent shows an acceptable safety profile and evidence of efficacy. Rapid recruitment to multiple agents is enabled through the sharing of placebo, the confining of agent-specific information to protocol appendices, and modular consent forms. In collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, a thorough safety data collection and Data and Safety Monitoring Board schedule was developed for the study of potential therapeutic agents with limited in-human data in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: As of 8 August 2021, five agents have entered the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 master protocol and a total of 1909 participants have been randomized to one of these agents or matching placebo. There were a number of challenges faced by the study team that needed to be overcome in order to successfully implement Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 across a global network of sites. These included ensuring drug supply and reliable recruitment allowing for changing infection rates across the global network of sites, the need to balance the collection of data and samples without overburdening clinical staff and obtaining regulatory approvals across a global network of sites. CONCLUSION: Through a robust multi-network partnership, the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 protocol has been successfully used across a global network of sites for rapid generation of efficacy data on multiple novel antiviral agents. The protocol design and implementation features used in this protocol, and the approaches to address challenges, will have broader applicability. Mechanisms to facilitate improved communication and harmonization among country-specific regulatory bodies are required to achieve the full potential of this approach in dealing with a global outbreak.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
17.
Crit Care Clin ; 37(4): 733-748, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1414518

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a common condition among critically ill patients, but remains under-recognized and undertreated. Under-recognition may result from confusion over the clinical inclusion criteria, as well as a misunderstanding of the complex relationship between the clinical syndrome, the variable histopathologic patterns, and the myriad clinical disorders that cause acute respiratory distress syndrome. The identification of the clinical syndrome and determination of the causal diagnosis are both required to optimize patient outcomes. Here we review the definition, discuss pitfalls in recognizing acute respiratory distress syndrome and consider an approach to ascertain specific etiologies of acute respiratory distress syndrome.


Subject(s)
Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
18.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(8): 933-936, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1413072

ABSTRACT

The 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) provided validated support for three levels of initial arterial hypoxaemia that correlated with mortality in patients receiving ventilatory support. Since 2015, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has become widely used as an effective therapeutic support for acute respiratory failure, most recently in patients with severe COVID-19. We propose that the Berlin definition of ARDS be broadened to include patients treated with HFNO of at least 30 L/min who fulfil the other criteria for the Berlin definition of ARDS. An expanded definition would make the diagnosis of ARDS more widely applicable, allowing patients at an earlier stage of the syndrome to be recognised, independent of the need for endotracheal intubation or positive-pressure ventilation, with benefits for the testing of early interventions and the study of factors associated with the course of ARDS. We identify key questions that could be addressed in refining an expanded definition of ARDS, the implementation of which could lead to improvements in clinical practice and clinical outcomes for patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Early Diagnosis , Humans , Patient Selection , Respiratory Insufficiency/blood , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Time-to-Treatment/standards
19.
J Hosp Med ; 2021 Aug 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1369934

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients discharged after COVID-19 report ongoing needs. OBJECTIVES: To measure incident symptoms after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preplanned early look at 1-month follow-up surveys from patients hospitalized August 2020 to January 2021 in NHLBI PETAL Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. English- or Spanish-speaking hospitalized adults without substantial pre-COVID-19 disability with a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Overall, 253 patients were hospitalized for a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-8), and had a median age of 60 years (IQR, 45-68). By race/ethnicity, 136 (53.8%) were non-Hispanic White, 23 (9.1%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 83 (32.8%) were Hispanic. Most (139 [54.9%]) reported a new or worsened cardiopulmonary symptom, and 16% (n = 39) reported new or increased oxygen use; 213 (84.2%) patients reported not feeling fully back to their pre-COVID-19 level of functioning. New limitations in activities of daily living were present in 130 (52.8%) patients. Financial toxicities, including job loss or change (49 [19.8%]), having a loved one take time off (93 [37.8%]), and using up one's savings (58 [23.2%]), were common. Longer lengths of hospital stay were associated with greater odds of 1-month cardiopulmonary symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.82 per additional week in the hospital; 95% CI, 1.11-2.98) and new disability (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.21-3.53). There were not uniform demographic patterns of association. LIMITATIONS: We prioritized patients' reports of their own incident problems over objective testing. CONCLUSION: Patients who survived COVID-19 in the United States during late 2020/early 2021 still faced new burdens 1 month after hospital discharge.

20.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(7): e0480, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301384

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that elevated soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 concentrations, a marker of pulmonary epithelial injury, reflect ongoing lung injury in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and associate with continued ventilator dependence. DESIGN: We associated serial plasma soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 levels and markers of systemic inflammation including d-dimer, C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate with 30-day mortality and ventilator dependence. SETTING: Adult medical ICUs and general medicine wards at an academic teaching hospital in Boston, MA. PATIENTS: Adult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted to the ICU (n = 72) and non-ICU patients managed with supplemental oxygen (n = 77). INTERVENTIONS: Observational study from April 25 to June 25, 2020. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU patients had a higher baseline body mass index and median soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2, d-dimer, and C-reactive protein concentrations compared with non-ICU patients. Among ICU patients, elevated baseline modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and log (soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2) were associated with 30-day mortality, whereas initial Pao2/Fio2 and markers of systemic inflammation were similar between groups. Only log (soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2) associated with ventilator dependence over time, with the last measured log (soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2) concentration obtained on ICU day 11.5 (interquartile range [7-17]) higher in patients who required reintubation or tracheostomy placement compared with patients who were successfully extubated (2.10 [1.89-2.26] vs 1.87 ng/mL [1.72-2.13 ng/mL]; p = 0.03). Last measured systemic inflammatory markers, modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and Pao2/Fio2 were not different between patients who were successfully extubated compared with those with continued ventilator dependence. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 is a biomarker readily measured in blood that can provide dynamic information about the degree of a patient's lung injury and real-time assessment of the likelihood of extubation success. Measures of systemic inflammation, illness severity, and oxygenation did not associate with ventilator outcomes.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL