Posttransplant survival is not diminished in heart transplant recipients bridged with implantable left ventricular assist devices

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare posttransplantation morbidity and mortality in orthotopic heart transplant recipients bridged to transplant with a left ventricular assist device with nonbridged recipients. To account for potential differences across device types, we stratified bridge-to-transplant recipients by type of ventricular assist device: extracorporeal (EXTRA), paracorporeal (PARA), and intracorporeal (INTRA).MethodsThe United Network for Organ Sharing provided de-identified patient-level data. The study population included 10,668 orthotopic heart transplant recipients aged 18 years old or older and undergoing transplantation between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2006. Follow-up data were provided through August 3, 2008, with a mean follow-up time of 3.17 ± 2.15 years (range, 0–8.11 years). The primary outcome was actuarial posttransplant graft survival. Other outcomes of interest included infection, stroke, and dialysis during the transplant hospitalization; primary graft failure at 30 days; transplant hospitalization length of stay; and long-term complications including diabetes mellitus, transplant coronary artery disease, and chronic dialysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and overall graft survival, and multivariable logistic regression analysis (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn multivariable Cox regression analysis, when compared with the nonbridged group, risk-adjusted greater than 90-day graft survival was diminished among the EXTRA group (hazard ratio = 3.54, 2.28–5.51, P < .001), but not the INTRA group (1.04, 0.719–1.51, P = .834) or the PARA group (1.06, 0.642–1.76, P = .809). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted graft survival across the 4 groups during the 90-days to 1-year or 1- to 5-year intervals. However, at more than 5 years, risk-adjusted graft survival in the INTRA group (0.389, 0.205–0.738, P = .004) was better than in the nonbridged group. The EXTRA, PARA, and INTRA groups all experienced increased risks of infection. The EXTRA group had increased risks of dialysis, stroke, and primary graft failure at 30 days, whereas neither the PARA nor the INTRA group differed from the nonbridged group. Long-term complications did not differ by group.ConclusionThe use of implantable left ventricular assist devices as bridges to transplantation, including both intracorporeal and paracorporeal devices, is not associated with diminished posttransplant survival. However, 90-day survival was diminished in recipients bridged with extracorporeal devices

Designing comparative effectiveness trials of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: Experience of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network

ObjectiveSince the introduction of the cut-and-sew Cox maze procedure for atrial fibrillation, there has been substantial innovation in techniques for ablation. Use of alternative energy sources for ablation simplified the procedure and has resulted in dramatic increase in the number of patients with atrial fibrillation treated by surgical ablation. Despite its increasingly widespread adoption, there is lack of rigorous clinical evidence to establish this procedure as an effective clinical therapy.MethodsThis article describes a comparative effectiveness randomized trial, supported by the Cardiothoracic Surgical Clinical Trials Network, of surgical ablation with left atrial appendage closure versus left atrial appendage closure alone in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing mitral valve surgery. Nested within this trial is a further randomized comparison of 2 different lesions sets: pulmonary vein isolation and the full maze lesion set.ResultsThis article addresses trial design challenges, including how best to characterize the target population, operationalize freedom from atrial fibrillation as a primary end point, account for the impact of antiarrhythmic drugs, and measure and analyze secondary end points, such as postoperative atrial fibrillation load.ConclusionsThis article concludes by discussing how insights that emerge from this trial may affect surgical practice and guide future research in this area

Lessons from an international trial evaluating vaccination strategies for recovered inpatients with COVID-19 (VATICO)

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

Contemporary specificities of labour in the health care sector: introductory notes for discussion

BACKGROUND: This paper combines the literature on public health, on economics of health and on economics of technological innovation to discuss the peculiarities of labour in the health care sector. METHOD AND FRAMEWORK: The starting point is the investigation of the economic peculiarities of medical care. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: This investigation leads to the identification of the prevalence of non-market forms of medical care in the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Furthermore, the health care system has a distinctive characteristic from other economic sectors: it is the intersection between social welfare and innovation systems. The relationship between technological innovation and cost in the health care sector is surveyed. Finally, the Brazilian case is discussed as an example of a developing country. CONCLUSION: The peculiarities of labour in the health care sector suggest the need to recognize the worth of sectoral labour and to cease to treat it separately. This process should take into account the rapid development of the health innovation system and one important consequence: the obsolescence of the acquired knowledge. One way to dignify labour is to implement continued education and training of health professions personnel

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed

Intravenous Aviptadil and Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19-Associated Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in the USA (Tesico): A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial

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