Assessing a Novel Adaptation to CCI Devices to Model Human Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Background: Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBIs) are a health crisis with over a million people suffering injuries each year in the United States. The majority of TBIs are mild injuries which often produce no period of unconsciousness and no gross damage to the brain or skull. A range of TBI animal models exist but many produce injuries too severe to characterize as mild. One TBI induction method commonly used is Controlled Cortical Impact (CCI) devices. New Method: The purpose of this study is to assess a novel adaptation to CCI devices that allows for the induction of mild injuries that mimic human mild TBI (mTBI). In this apparatus, the mouse is placed on an elevated platform which utilizes a sensor to collapse the platform as the impactor hits the head. Results: On the first day of injury, the repetitive dropping platform group had a significantly lower Time to Righting (TTR) than both control and single hit stationary platform groups. Additionally, on the first day of injury the single-hit stationary group had a significantly increased Time to Ambulation (TTA) compared to all other groups. Furthermore, this adaptation produces significantly less GFAP than CCI injuries performed without the falling platform. Comparison with existing models: This model incorporates the high control of the CCI device that may be lost in weight-drop models of mild injury while also producing translational mild injuries. Conclusion: This adaptation can be used in any CCI research lab to translationally study mild injuries. This will facilitate murine research into mTBI

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

Concordance between patient-centered and adaptive behavior outcome measures after applied behavior analysis for autism.

BackgroundApplied behavior analysis (ABA) is an evidence-based approach to autism spectrum disorder that has been shown in clinical trials to improve child functional status. There is substantial focus in ABA on setting and tracking individualized goals that are patient-centered, but limited research on how to measure progress on such patient-centered outcomes.PurposeThe purpose of this investigation was to assess concordance between patient-centered and standard outcome measures of treatment progress in a real-world clinical sample of children receiving ABA for autism spectrum disorder.MethodsThis observational study used a clinical sample of children ages 3 to 16 years (N = 154) who received 24 months of ABA from an integrated health system. Concordance between three outcome measures after ABA was assessed using a correlation matrix: (1) patient-centered measures of progress on individualized treatment goals, (2) caregiver-centered measure of progress on treatment participation goals, and (3) the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales adaptive behavior composite.ResultsThere was limited concordance among measures at both 12 and 24 months of ABA. None of the patient-centered measures showed significant positive correlation with adaptive behavior composite difference scores at either 12 or 24 months, nor did the caregiver measure. The percentage of children achieving clinically meaningful gain on patient-centered goal measures increased between 12 and 24 months of ABA, while the percentage of children achieving clinically meaningful gains in adaptive behavior declined during the same time period.ConclusionsIn a health system implementation of ABA, there was limited concordance between patient-centered and standard measures of clinically meaningful treatment progress for children with ASD. Clinicians should have ongoing dialogue with patients and parents/caregivers to ensure that interventions for ASD are resulting in progress towards outcomes that are meaningful to patients and families

Advanced Auditory Displays and Head-Mounted Displays: Advantages and Disadvantages for Monitoring by the Distracted Anesthesiologist

BACKGROUND: In a full-scale anesthesia simulator study we examined the relative effectiveness of advanced auditory displays for respiratory and blood pressure monitoring and of head-mounted displays (HMDs) as supplements to standard intraoperative monitoring

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc