At the intersection of trust and mistrust: A qualitative analysis of motivators and barriers to research participation at a safety-net hospital.

INTRODUCTION: The underrepresentation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals in healthcare research limits generalizability and contributes to healthcare inequities. Existing barriers and attitudes toward research participation must be addressed to increase the representation of safety net and other underserved populations. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients at an urban safety net hospital, focusing on facilitators, barriers, motivators, and preferences for research participation. We conducted direct content analysis guided by an implementation framework and used rapid analysis methods to generate final themes. RESULTS: We completed 38 interviews and identified six major themes related to preferences for engagement in research participation: (1) wide variation in research recruitment preferences; (2) logistical complexity negatively impacts willingness to participate; (3) risk contributes to hesitation toward research participation; (4) personal/community benefit, interest in study topic, and compensation serve as motivators for research participation; (5) continued participation despite reported shortcomings of informed consent process; and (6) mistrust could be overcome by relationship or credibility of information sources. CONCLUSION: Despite barriers to participation in research studies among safety-net populations, there are also facilitators that can be implemented to increase knowledge and comprehension, ease of participation, and willingness to join research studies. Study teams should vary recruitment and participation methods to ensure equal access to research opportunities. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our analysis methods and study progress were presented to individuals within the Boston Medical Center healthcare system. Through this process community engagement specialists, clinical experts, research directors, and others with significant experience working with safety-net populations supported data interpretation and provided recommendations for action following the dissemination of data.

Practice Changes Among Patients Without COVID-19 Receiving Mechanical Ventilation During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in care delivery for critically ill patients, due to factors including increased numbers of ICU patients, shifting staff roles, and changed care locations. As these changes may have impacted the care of patients without COVID-19, we assessed changes in common ICU practices for mechanically ventilated patients with non-COVID acute respiratory failure at the onset of and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis, adjusted for seasonality and autocorrelation where present, evaluating trends in common ICU practices prior to the pandemic (March 2016 to February 2020), at the onset of the pandemic (April 2020) and intra-pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020). SETTING: Premier Healthcare Database, containing data from 25% of U.S. discharges from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. PATIENTS: Patients without COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed monthly rates of chest radiograph (CXR), chest CT scans, lower extremity noninvasive vascular testing (LENI), bronchoscopy, arterial catheters, and central venous catheters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 742,096 mechanically ventilated patients without COVID-19 at 545 hospitals. At the onset of the pandemic, CXR (-0.5% [-0.9% to -0.2%; p = 0.001]), LENI (LENI: -2.1% [-3.3% to -0.9%; p = 0.001]), and bronchoscopy rates (-1.0% [-1.5% to -0.6%; p < 0.001]) decreased; use of chest CT increased (1.5% [0.5-2.5%; p = 0.006]). Use of arterial lines and central venous catheters did not change significantly. Intra-pandemic, LENI (0.5% [0.3-0.7%; p < 0.001]/mo) and bronchoscopy (0.1% [0.05-0.2%; p < 0.001]/mo) trends increased relative to pre-pandemic trends, while the remainder of practices did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: We observed several statistically significant changes to practice patterns among patients without COVID-19 early during the pandemic. However, most of the changes were small or temporary, suggesting that routine practices in the care of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU was not drastically affected by the pandemic.

Circulating neutrophil extracellular trap (NET)-forming 'rogue' neutrophil subset, immunotype [DEspR + CD11b +], mediate multi-organ failure in COVID-19-an observational study.

Background: Cumulative research show association of neutrophils and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) with poor outcomes in severe COVID-19. However, to date, there is no curative intent therapy able to block neutrophil/NETs-mediated progression of multi-organ dysfunction. Because of emerging neutrophil heterogeneity, the study of subsets of circulating NET-forming neutrophils [NET + Ns] as mediators of multi-organ failure progression among patients with COVID-19 is critical to identification of therapeutic targets. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of circulating levels of CD11b + [NET + N] immunotyped for dual endothelin-1/signal peptide receptor (DEspR ±) expression by quantitative immunofluorescence-cytology and causal mediation analysis. In 36 consented adults hospitalized with mod-severe COVID-19, May to September 2020, we measured acute multi-organ failure via SOFA-scores and respiratory failure via SaO2/FiO2 (SF)-ratio at time points t1 (average 5.5 days from ICU/hospital admission) and t2 (the day before ICU-discharge or death), and ICU-free days at day28 (ICUFD). Circulating absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) and [NET + N] subset-specific counts were measured at t1. Spearman correlation and causal mediation analyses were conducted. Results: Spearman correlation analyses showed correlations of t1-SOFA with t2-SOFA (rho r S = 0.80) and ICUFD (r S = -0.76); circulating DEspR + [NET + Ns] with t1-SOFA (r S = 0.71), t2-SOFA (r S = 0.62), and ICUFD (r S = -0.63), and ANC with t1-SOFA (r S = 0.71), and t2-SOFA (r S = 0.61).Causal mediation analysis identified DEspR + [NET + Ns] as mediator of 44.1% [95% CI:16.5,110.6] of the causal path between t1-SOFA (exposure) and t2-SOFA (outcome), with 46.9% [15.8,124.6] eliminated when DEspR + [NET + Ns] were theoretically reduced to zero. Concordantly, DEspR + [NET + Ns] mediated 47.1% [22.0,72.3%] of the t1-SOFA to ICUFD causal path, with 51.1% [22.8,80.4%] eliminated if DEspR + [NET + Ns] were reduced to zero. In patients with t1-SOFA > 1, the indirect effect of a hypothetical treatment eliminating DEspR + [NET + Ns] projected a reduction of t2-SOFA by 0.98 [0.29,2.06] points and ICUFD by 3.0 [0.85,7.09] days. In contrast, there was no significant mediation of SF-ratio through DEspR + [NET + Ns], and no significant mediation of SOFA-score through ANC. Conclusions: Despite equivalent correlations, DEspR + [NET + Ns], but not ANC, mediated progression of multi-organ failure in acute COVID-19, and its hypothetical reduction is projected to improve ICUFD. These translational findings warrant further studies of DEspR + [NET + Ns] as potential patient-stratifier and actionable therapeutic target for multi-organ failure in COVID-19. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41231-023-00143-x.

Inhaled Nitric Oxide vs Epoprostenol During Acute Respiratory Failure: An Observational Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: The inhaled vasodilators nitric oxide and epoprostenol may be initiated to improve oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure (ARF); however, practice patterns and head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness are unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the practice patterns and comparative effectiveness for inhaled nitric oxide and epoprostenol in severe ARF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a large US database (Premier Healthcare Database), we identified adult patients with ARF or ARDS who were mechanically ventilated and started on inhaled nitric oxide, epoprostenol, or both. Leveraging large hospital variation in the choice of initial inhaled vasodilator, we compared the effectiveness of inhaled nitric oxide with that of epoprostenol by limiting analysis to patients admitted to hospitals that exclusively used either inhaled nitric oxide or epoprostenol. The primary outcome of successful extubation was modeled using multivariate Fine-Grey competing risk (death or hospice discharge) time-to-event models. RESULTS: Among 11,200 patients (303 hospitals), 6,366 patients (56.8%) received inhaled nitric oxide first, 4,720 patients (42.1%) received inhaled epoprostenol first, and 114 patients (1.0%) received both therapies on the same day. One hundred four hospitals (34.3%; 1,666 patients) exclusively used nitric oxide and 118 hospitals (38.9%; 1,812 patients) exclusively used epoprostenol. No differences were found in the likelihood of successful extubation between patients admitted to nitric oxide-only hospitals vs those admitted to epoprostenol-only hospitals (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). Also no differences were found in total hospital costs or death. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Large variation exists in the use of initial inhaled vasodilator for respiratory failure across US hospitals. Comparative effectiveness analyses identified no differences in outcomes based on inhaled vasodilator type.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285. FINDINGS: A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU. FUNDING: OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Variation in Use of Repurposed Medications Among Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. From The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registry Investigator Group.

IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40-4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23-6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

Rationale and Design of the Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Study Protocol: A Clinical Trial.

The unprecedented public health burdens of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have intensified the urgency of identifying effective, low-cost treatments that limit the need for advanced life support measures and improve clinical outcomes. However, personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, disease virulence, and infectivity have created significant barriers to traditional clinical trial practices. We present the novel design of a pragmatic, adaptive, multicenter, international, prospective randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of awake prone positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 (APPEX-19 [Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19]). Key innovations of this trial include 1) a novel smartphone-based communication process that facilitates rapid enrollment and intervention delivery while allowing social distancing and conservation of personal protective equipment, 2) Bayesian response-adaptive randomization to allow preferential assignment to the most effective intervention and expedite trial completion compared with frequentist designs, 3) remote electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes and electronic medical record data, and 4) pragmatic prospective use of patient-reported data and data collected as part of routine clinical care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04344587).