Search

Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment–time interactions were –0·09 (95% CI –0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (–0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation—as measured by CRP concentration—in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested a non-significant increased risk of stroke among proton pump inhibitor (PPI) users, the association has not been confirmed. We evaluated the association between regular use of PPIs and incident stroke and identified population groups at high net risk. Methods: This is a prospective analysis of 492,479 participants free of stroke from the UK biobank. Incident stroke was identified through linkage to hospital admission and death registries using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes (I60, I61, I63, and I64). We evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) adjusting for demographic factors, lifestyle habits, prevalent comorbidities, concomitant use of medications, and indications of PPIs. We assessed the risk differences (RDs) according to the baseline Framingham Stroke Risk Score. In the meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from 1988 to 1 June 2020) for randomized trials comparing PPIs with other interventions, placebo, or no treatment on stroke risk. Results were combined using a fix-effect meta-analysis (Mantel-Haenszel method). Results: We documented 5182 incident strokes over 3,935,030 person-years of follow-up. Regular PPI users had a 16% higher risk of stroke than non-users (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27). The estimated effect was similar to our meta-analysis of nine RCTs (case/participants 371/26,642; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.50; quality of evidence: moderate). The absolute effect of PPI use on stroke increased with the baseline Framingham Stroke Risk Score, with an RD of 1.34‰, 3.32‰, 4.83‰, and 6.28‰ over 5 years for the lowest, quartile 2, quartile 3, and the highest quartile, respectively. Conclusions: Regular use of PPIs was associated with an increased risk of stroke, with a higher absolute risk observed in individuals with high baseline stroke risk. Physicians should therefore exercise caution when prescribing PPIs. An assessment of the underlying stoke risk is recommended for individualized use of PPIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Good analgesia has been shown to reduce the risk of pneumonia, chronic pain, and mortality in patients with multiple rib fractures (MRFs). This survey explores the current analgesic practice in the UK, protocol use, barriers to provision, and physician preferences. Materials and methods: A web-based survey was distributed nationally to an enriched cohort of clinicians working in UK trauma units with an interest in MRF management. Results: Seventy-nine healthcare professionals responded. A third (31.4%) reported that their department had a rib fracture pain protocol, 52.9% did not, and 15.7% were unsure. Significantly more respondents reported adequate pain control when a hospital protocol was present compared to when not (χ², p < 0.01). Inadequate analgesia, a poor cough, and inability to breathe deeply were the commonest complications reported by 81.4, 78.6, and 65.7%, respectively. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was the most commonly used form of analgesia (38.6%) followed by thoracic epidural (TEA) (30.0%) and continuous opioid infusion (18.6%). However, TEA was the preferred method of analgesia among respondents (37.1%) followed by serratus block (21.4%), paravertebral block (17.1%), and PCA (14.3%). Discussion: There is considerable variation among physicians in their current use of analgesic modalities, with opiate-based methods predominating despite a physician preference for regional techniques. Thoracic epidurals are preferred by physicians but of limited use as a result of contraindications, time pressures, and staff skill mix. Pain control is reported to be better handled when protocols are present. Further research focusing on currently utilized regional techniques is required in order to produce a validated standardized national protocol that is informed by the current practice, the evidence base, and limitations to service provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Risk prediction models are widely used to inform evidence-based clinical decision making. However, few models developed from single cohorts can perform consistently well at population level where diverse prognoses exist (such as the SARS-CoV-2 [severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2] pandemic). This study aims at tackling this challenge by synergizing prediction models from the literature using ensemble learning., Materials and Methods: In this study, we selected and reimplemented 7 prediction models for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) that were derived from diverse cohorts and used different implementation techniques. A novel ensemble learning framework was proposed to synergize them for realizing personalized predictions for individual patients. Four diverse international cohorts (2 from the United Kingdom and 2 from China; N = 5394) were used to validate all 8 models on discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness., Results: Results showed that individual prediction models could perform well on some cohorts while poorly on others. Conversely, the ensemble model achieved the best performances consistently on all metrics quantifying discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. Performance disparities were observed in cohorts from the 2 countries: all models achieved better performances on the China cohorts., Discussion: When individual models were learned from complementary cohorts, the synergized model had the potential to achieve better performances than any individual model. Results indicate that blood parameters and physiological measurements might have better predictive powers when collected early, which remains to be confirmed by further studies., Conclusions: Combining a diverse set of individual prediction models, the ensemble method can synergize a robust and well-performing model by choosing the most competent ones for individual patients., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Rationale: Patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have complex organ support needs that necessitate prolonged stays in the intensive care unit (ICU), likely to result in a high incidence of neuromuscular weakness and loss of well-being. Early and structured rehabilitation has been associated with improved outcomes for patients requiring prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation, but at present no data are available to describe similar interventions or outcomes in COVID-19 populations. Objectives: To describe the demographics, clinical status, level of rehabilitation, and mobility status at ICU discharge of patients with COVID-19. Methods: Adults admitted to the ICU with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify the time taken to first mobilize (defined as sitting on the edge of the bed or higher) and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge. Results: A total of n  = 177 patients were identified, of whom n  = 110 survived to ICU discharge and were included in the subsequent analysis. While on ICU, patients required prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation (mean 19 ± 10 d), most received neuromuscular blockade (90%) and 67% were placed in the prone position on at least one occasion. The mean ± standard deviation time to first mobilize was 14 ± 7 days, with a median Manchester Mobility Score at ICU discharge of 5 (interquartile range: 4-6), which represents participants able to stand and step around to a chair with or without assistance. Time to mobilize was significantly longer in those with higher body mass index ( P  < 0.001), and older patients ( P  = 0.012) and those with more comorbidities ( P  = 0.017) were more likely to require further rehabilitation after discharge. Conclusions: The early experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom resembles the experience in other countries, with high acuity of illness and prolonged period of mechanical ventilation required for those patients admitted to the ICU. Although the time to commence rehabilitation was delayed owing to this severity of illness, rehabilitation was possible within the ICU and led to increased levels of mobility from waking before ICU discharge.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04396197).

Objectives: In various medical and surgical conditions, research has found that centers with higher patient volumes have better outcomes. This relationship has not previously been explored for status epilepticus. This study sought to examine whether centers that see higher volumes of patients with status epilepticus have lower in-hospital mortality than low-volume centers., Design: Cohort study, using 2010-2015 data from the nationwide Case Mix Programme database of the U.K.'s Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre., Setting: Greater than 90% of ICUs in United Kingdom, Wales, and Northern Ireland., Patients: Twenty-thousand nine-hundred twenty-two adult critical care admissions with a primary or secondary diagnosis of status epilepticus or prolonged seizure., Interventions: Annual hospital status epilepticus admission volume., Measurements and Main Results: We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate the association between hospital annual status epilepticus admission volume and in-hospital mortality. Hospital volume was modeled as a nonlinear variable using restricted cubic splines, and generalized estimating equations with robust SEs were used to account for clustering by institution. There were 2,462 in-hospital deaths (11.8%). There was no significant association between treatment volume and in-hospital mortality for status epilepticus (p = 0.54). This conclusion was unchanged across a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses, although we lacked data on seizure duration and medication use. Secondary analyses suggest that many high-risk patients were already transferred from low- to high-volume centers., Conclusions: We find no evidence that higher volume centers are associated with lower mortality in status epilepticus overall. It is likely that national guidelines and local pathways in the United Kingdom allow efficient patient transfer from smaller centers like district general hospitals to provide satisfactory patient care in status epilepticus. Future research using more granular data should explore this association for the subgroup of patients with refractory and superrefractory status epilepticus.