Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., (i) the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; (ii) the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; (iii) the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical.

Advancing precision medicine for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

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.

Host genetic effects in pneumonia.

Given the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, investigations into host susceptibility to infectious diseases and downstream sequelae have never been more relevant. Pneumonia is a lung disease that can cause respiratory failure and hypoxia and is a common complication of infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Few genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of host susceptibility and severity of pneumonia have been conducted. We performed GWASs of pneumonia susceptibility and severity in the Vanderbilt University biobank (BioVU) with linked electronic health records (EHRs), including Illumina Expanded Multi-Ethnic Global Array (MEGAEX)-genotyped European ancestry (EA, n= 69,819) and African ancestry (AA, n = 15,603) individuals. Two regions of large effect were identified: the CFTR locus in EA (rs113827944; OR = 1.84, p value = 1.2 × 10-36) and HBB in AA (rs334 [p.Glu7Val]; OR = 1.63, p value = 3.5 × 10-13). Mutations in these genes cause cystic fibrosis (CF) and sickle cell disease (SCD), respectively. After removing individuals diagnosed with CF and SCD, we assessed heterozygosity effects at our lead variants. Further GWASs after removing individuals with CF uncovered an additional association in R3HCC1L (rs10786398; OR = 1.22, p value = 3.5 × 10-8), which was replicated in two independent datasets: UK Biobank (n = 459,741) and 7,985 non-overlapping BioVU subjects, who are genotyped on arrays other than MEGAEX. This variant was also validated in GWASs of COVID-19 hospitalization and lung function. Our results highlight the importance of the host genome in infectious disease susceptibility and severity and offer crucial insight into genetic effects that could potentially influence severity of COVID-19 sequelae.