Search

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundEnsovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone.DesignDouble-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978).SettingMultinational, multicenter trial.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized with COVID-19.InterventionIntravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo.MeasurementsEnsovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90.ResultsAn independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR

Purpose: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) provides respiratory support without invasive endotracheal intubation but can hinder patients' ability to communicate effectively. The current study presents preliminary results using a novel in-mask ventilator microphone to enhance talker intelligibility while receiving NIV. Method: A proof-of-concept study assessed sentence intelligibility of five healthy adult talkers using a prototype model of the microphone under continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP; 5/5 cm H2O) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP; 8/4 cm H2O) ventilator conditions. A pilot study then assessed intelligibility, subjective comprehensibility and naturalness, and patient- and conversation partner-reported communication outcomes for eight patients undergoing therapeutic NIV while being treated in an intensive care unit (ICU). Result: Intelligibility increased significantly with the microphone on in the BiPAP condition for healthy volunteers. For patients undergoing NIV in an ICU, intelligibility, comprehensibility, and patient and conversation partner ratings of conversation satisfaction significantly improved with the microphone on. Patients with lower baselines without the microphone in certain measures (intelligibility, comprehensibility) generally showed a greater microphone benefit than patients with higher baselines. Conclusion: Use of a novel microphone integrated into NIV improved intelligibility during ventilation for both healthy volunteers and patients undergoing therapeutic NIV. Additional clinical studies will define precise benefits and implications of such improved intelligibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Routine spontaneous awakening and breathing trial coordination (SAT/SBT) improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients, but adherence varies. Understanding barriers to and facilitators of consistent daily use of SAT/SBT (implementation determinants) can guide the development of implementation strategies to increase adherence to these evidence-based interventions. Objectives: We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixedmethods study to measure variation in the routine daily use of SAT/SBT and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in SAT/SBT use across 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in urban and rural locations within an integrated, community-based health system. Methods: We described the patient population and measured adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT from January to June 2021, selecting four sites with varied adherence levels for semistructured field interviews. We conducted key informant interviews with critical care nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians/advanced practice clinicians (n = 55) from these four sites between October and December 2021 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants of SAT/SBT use. Results: The 15 sites had 1,901 ICU admissions receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for >24 hours during the measurement period. The mean IMV patient age was 58 years, and the median IMV duration was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 2.5-11.9). Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence (within 2 h) was estimated at 21% systemwide (site range, 9-68%). ICU clinicians were generally familiar with SAT/SBT but varied in their knowledge and beliefs about what constituted an evidence-based SAT/SBT. Clinicians reported that SAT/SBT coordination was difficult in the context of existing ICU workflows, and existing protocols did not explicitly define how coordination should be performed. The lack of an agreed-upon system-level measure for tracking daily use of SAT/SBT led to uncertainty regarding what constituted adherence. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic increased clinician workloads, impacting performance. Conclusions: Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence varied substantially across 15 ICUs within an integrated, communitybased health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including knowledge deficits, challenges regarding workflow coordination, and the lack of performance measurement, should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT and minimize harm related to the prolonged use of mechanical ventilation and sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to identify potentially modifiable in‐hospital factors associated with global cognition, post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months. Methods: This was a multi‐center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID‐19. The following in‐hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in‐person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve‐month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA‐Blind. Twelve‐month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM‐V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively. Findings: Two hundred three patients completed the 12‐month follow‐up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA‐Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12‐month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12‐month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85). Conclusion: Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long‐term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates.Objective: Assess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Methods: We performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective.Results: We enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury.Conclusions: While early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation.Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic struck an immunologically naïve, globally interconnected population. In the face of a new infectious agent causing acute respiratory failure for which there were no known effective therapies, rapid, often pragmatic trials were necessary to evaluate potential treatments, frequently starting with medications that are already marketed for other indications. Early in the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were two such candidates., Objective: Assess the relative efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Methods: We performed a randomized clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Treatment was 5 days of study medication. The primary endpoint was the COVID Ordinal Outcomes scale at day 14. Secondary endpoints included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days at day 28. The trial was stopped early after enrollment of 85 patients when a separate clinical trial concluded that a clinically important effect of hydroxychloroquine over placebo was definitively excluded. Comparisons were made a priori using a proportional odds model from a Bayesian perspective., Results: We enrolled 85 patients at 13 hospitals over 11 weeks. Adherence to study medication was high. The estimated odds ratio for less favorable status on the ordinal scale for hydroxychloroquine vs. azithromycin from the primary analysis was 1.07, with a 95% credible interval from 0.63 to 1.83 with a posterior probability of 60% that hydroxychloroquine was worse than azithryomycin. Secondary outcomes displayed a similar, slight preference for azithromycin over hydroxychloroquine. QTc prolongation was rare and did not differ between groups. The twenty safety outcomes were similar between arms with the possible exception of post-randomization onset acute kidney injury, which was more common with hydroxychloroquine (15% vs. 0%). Patients in the hydroxychloroquine arm received remdesivir more often than in the azithromycin arm (19% vs. 2%). There was no apparent association between remdesivir use and acute kidney injury., Conclusions: While early termination limits the precision of our results, we found no suggestion of substantial efficacy for hydroxychloroquine over azithromycin. Acute kidney injury may be more common with hydroxychloroquine than azithromycin, although this may be due to the play of chance. Differential use of remdesivir may have biased our results in favor of hydroxychloroquine. Our results are consistent with conclusions from other trials that hydroxychloroquine cannot be recommended for inpatients with COVID-19; azithromycin may merit additional investigation., Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was prospectively registered (NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.