Intravenous angiotensin II for the treatment of high-output shock (ATHOS trial): a pilot study

Introduction: Patients with distributive shock who require high dose vasopressors have a high mortality. Angiotensin II (ATII) may prove useful in patients who remain hypotensive despite catecholamine and vasopressin therapy. The appropriate dose of parenteral angiotensin II for shock is unknown. Methods: In total, 20 patients with distributive shock and a cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 were randomized to either ATII infusion (N?=?10) or placebo (N?=?10) plus standard of care. ATII was started at a dose of 20?ng/kg/min, and titrated for a goal of maintaining a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65?mmHg. The infusion (either ATII or placebo) was continued for 6?hours then titrated off. The primary endpoint was the effect of ATII on the standing dose of norepinephrine required to maintain a MAP of 65?mmHg. Results: ATII resulted in marked reduction in norepinephrine dosing in all patients. The mean hour 1 norepinephrine dose for the placebo cohort was 27.6???29.3 mcg/min versus 7.4???12.4 mcg/min for the ATII cohort (P?=?0.06). The most common adverse event attributable to ATII was hypertension, which occurred in 20% of patients receiving ATII. 30-day mortality for the ATII cohort and the placebo cohort was similar (50% versus 60%, P?=?1.00). Conclusion: Angiotensin II is an effective rescue vasopressor agent in patients with distributive shock requiring multiple vasopressors. The initial dose range of ATII that appears to be appropriate for patients with distributive shock is 2 to 10?ng/kg/min. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01393782. Registered 12 July 2011

Update to the Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) protocol: statistical analysis plan for a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational research suggests that combined therapy with Vitamin C, thiamine and hydrocortisone may reduce mortality in patients with septic shock. METHODS AND DESIGN: The Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial is a multicenter, double-blind, adaptive sample size, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of combination therapy with vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) given every 6 h for up to 16 doses in patients with respiratory or circulatory dysfunction (or both) resulting from sepsis. The primary outcome is ventilator- and vasopressor-free days with mortality as the key secondary outcome. Recruitment began in August 2018 and is ongoing; 501 participants have been enrolled to date, with a planned maximum sample size of 2000. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed interim results at N = 200, 300, 400 and 500, and has recommended continuing recruitment. The next interim analysis will occur when N = 1000. This update presents the statistical analysis plan. Specifically, we provide definitions for key treatment and outcome variables, and for intent-to-treat, per-protocol, and safety analysis datasets. We describe the planned descriptive analyses, the main analysis of the primary end point, our approach to secondary and exploratory analyses, and handling of missing data. Our goal is to provide enough detail that our approach could be replicated by an independent study group, thereby enhancing the transparency of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03509350. Registered on 26 April 2018

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

BACKGROUND Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 mu g of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. RESULTS A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P = 0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843.)Peer reviewe

Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption Outweigh Purchasing Power?

In many sectors, freedom in capital flow has allowed optimization of investment returns through choosing sites that provide the best value for money. These returns, however, can be compromised in countries where corruption is prevalent. We assessed where the best value for money might be obtained for investment in threatened species that occur at a single site, when taking into account corruption. We found that the influence of corruption on potential investment decisions was outweighed by the likely value for money in terms of pricing parity. Nevertheless global conservation is likely to get best returns in terms of threatened species security by investing in “honest” countries than in corrupt ones, particularly those with a high cost of living

Child-care self-assessment to improve physical activity, oral health and nutrition for 2- to 4-year-olds:a feasibility cluster RCT

Background: The Nutrition And Physical Activity Self Assessment for Child Care (NAP SACC) intervention has shown evidence of effectiveness in the USA but not been adapted or assessed for effectiveness in the UK. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing NAP SACC in the UK. Design: Adaptation and development of NAP SACC and feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) including process and economic evaluations. Substudies assessed mediator questionnaire test–retest reliability and feasibility of food photography methods. Setting: Nurseries, staff and parents in North Somerset, Cardiff, Gloucestershire and Bristol. Participants: Development – 15 early years/public health staff and health visitors, 12 nursery managers and 31 parents. RCT – 12 nurseries and 31 staff, four partners and 168 children/parents. Mediator substudy – 82 parents and 69 nursery staff. Food photography substudy – four nurseries, 18 staff and 51 children. Intervention: NAP SACC UK partners supported nurseries to review policies and practices and set goals to improve nutrition, oral health and physical activity (PA) over 5 months. Two workshops were delivered to nursery staff by local experts. A home component [website, short message service (SMS) and e-mails] supported parents. The control arm continued with usual practice. Main outcome measures: Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and methods according to prespecified criteria. Data sources: Qualitative data to adapt the intervention. Measurements with children, parents and staff at baseline and post intervention (8–10 months after baseline). Interviews with nursery managers, staff, parents and NAP SACC UK partners; observations of training, workshops and meetings. Nursery environment observation, nursery Review and Reflect score, and resource log. Child height and weight, accelerometer-determined PA and sedentary time, screen time and dietary outcomes using the Child and Diet Evaluation Tool. Staff and parent questionnaires of knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy. Child quality of life and nursery, family and health-care costs. Food photography of everything consumed by individual children and staff questionnaire to assess acceptability. Results: Thirty-two per cent (12/38) of nurseries and 35.3% (168/476) of children were recruited; no nurseries withdrew. The intervention was delivered in five out of six nurseries, with high levels of fidelity and acceptability. Partners found it feasible but had concerns about workload. The child loss to follow-up rate was 14.2%. There was suggestion of promise in intervention compared with control nurseries post intervention for snacks, screen time, proportion overweight or obese and accelerometer-measured total PA and moderate to vigorous PA. Many parental and nursery knowledge and motivation mediators improved. The average cost of delivering the intervention was £1184 per nursery excluding partner training, and the average cost per child was £27. Fourteen per cent of parents used the home component and the mediator questionnaire had good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Photography of food was acceptable and feasible. Limitations: Following nursery leavers was difficult. Accelerometer data, diet data and environmental assessment would have been more reliable with 2 days of data. Conclusions: The NAP SACC UK intervention and methods were found to be feasible and acceptable to participants, except for the home component. There was sufficient suggestion of promise to justify a definitive trial. Future work: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of NAP SACC UK has been funded by NIHR and will start in July 2019 (PHR NIHR 127551). Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16287377

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. Aim: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema—The 2021 revision and update

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1 inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1 inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: (1) How should HAE be diagnosed? (2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? (3) What are the goals of treatment? (4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast-feeding women? and (5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema - The 2021 revision and update.

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: 1) How should HAE be diagnosed? 2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? 3) What are the goals of treatment? 4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast feeding women? 5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients