Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Dumbing down? reflections on the role of audience response technology in helping students engage with their learning

Audience response technology (ART) has become increasingly popular in universities across the world (MacGeorge et al., 2007, p. 125). Users have claimed that ART is easy to use (ibid); promotes discussion (Brooks & Wood, 2005); and improves student learning (Ward, 2003). This paper will examine the way in which ART was embedded in a large, first year management unit at an Australian university. It will consider the practical and pedagogical implications of engaging with ART and report on both the initial concerns of the academics involved in the project, the feedback from students on the perceived benefits, and the challenges for staff in using the technology. The first part of the paper will review the literature on ART and examine what has been claimed in the name of ART. The second section will outline how and why ART was used by the authors. The final part of the paper presents the initial results from student surveys reflecting on the perceived benefits of ART before offering some practical proposals for academics and institutions considering their use. The paper will conclude that although students find ART simple and interesting to use and beneficial to learning, there remains two key challenges for institutions considering the adoption of ART in large classes. Firstly, ART is viewed with a high degree of scepticism by many academics; criticisms include the belief that ART is turning lectures into game shows, that technology is just a gimmick, and that ART is about entertainment rather than education. Secondly, there are a number of practical implications in relation to purchasing, distributing and maintaining ART in large classes and these implications serve as a significant deterrent for staff

The John Lewis model reveals the tensions and paradoxes at the heart of workplace democracy

Politicians of all parties have been keen to promote the ‘John Lewis model’ of industrial organisation, emphasising its features of employee ownership and workplace democracy. Dr Abby Cathcart’s research into the company shows that management and workers have different visions of what ‘partnership’ means, with ongoing struggle taking place via the organisation’s democratic structures. This, she argues, has stark implications for other organisations with partnership models that are less robust

Corporate governance, democracy and voice

The perceived importance of Corporate Governance has grown in recent years and two key concepts that have been associated with good governance are transparency and accountability (Werther and Chandler 2006:77). Much of the research in this area has focused on ‘traditional’ corporate models with limited liability, boards of directors, and shareholders. Takala (2007:4) called for a more radical approach to studying business practice and the role of business within a wider society in order to challenge the dominant discourse. This paper responds to that challenge by exploring the relationship between business ethics, corporate social responsibility and governance, but rather than taking the dominant functionalist approach, the focus is on a more critical conception of organisation. Based on a study of a number of firms with radical or alternative governance structures I argue that alongside transparency and accountability a key feature of socially responsible business practice is a transformation of power structures. In this way governance is seen as a mechanism through which organisations can enact citizenship behaviours, and rather than be subordinated to the organisations interests, employees’ diverse interests can be given voice through their democratic engagement with work

Using turning technologies to engage tutors and facilitate effective marking and moderation in large classes

Audience Response Systems (ARS) have been successfully used by academics to facilitate student learning and engagement, particularly in large lecture settings. However, in large core subjects a key challenge is not only to engage students, but also to engage large and diverse teaching teams in order to ensure a consistent approach to grading assessments. This paper provides an insight into the ways in which ARS can be used to encourage participation by tutors in marking and moderation meetings. It concludes that ARS can improve the consistency of grading and the quality of feedback provided to students

Directing democracy : competing interests and contested terrain in the John Lewis Partnership

The John Lewis Partnership is one of Europe’s largest models of employee ownership and has been operating a form of employee involvement and participation since its formation in 1929. It is frequently held up as a model of best practice (Cathcart, 2013) and has been described as a ‘workers’ paradise’ (Stummer and Lacey, 2001). At the beginning of 2012, the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK unveiled plans to create a ‘John Lewis Economy’ (Wintour, 2012). As John Lewis is being positioned at the heart of political and media discussions in the UK about alternatives to the corporate capitalist model of enterprise, it is vital that more is known about the experience of employee involvement and participation within the organisation. This article explores the ways in which the practice of employee involvement and participation has changed in John Lewis as a result of competing employee and managerial interests. Its contribution is a contemporary exploration of participation in the John Lewis Partnership and an examination of the ways in which management and employees contested the meaning and practice of employee involvement and participation as part of a ‘democracy project’, which culminated in significant changes and degeneration of the democratic structures