A Mobile Health Intervention for Patients With Depressive Symptoms: Protocol for an Economic Evaluation Alongside Two Randomized Trials in Brazil and Peru

BACKGROUND: Mobile health interventions provide significant strategies for improving access to health services, offering a potential solution to reduce the mental health treatment gap. Economic evaluation of this intervention is needed to help inform local mental health policy and program development. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for an economic evaluation conducted alongside 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a psychological intervention delivered through a technological platform (CONEMO) to treat depressive symptoms in people with diabetes, hypertension, or both. METHODS: The economic evaluation uses a within-trial analysis to evaluate the incremental costs and health outcomes of CONEMO plus enhanced usual care in comparison with enhanced usual care from public health care system and societal perspectives. Participants are patients of the public health care services for hypertension, diabetes, or both conditions in São Paulo, Brazil (n=880) and Lima, Peru (n=432). Clinical effectiveness will be measured by reduction in depressive symptoms and gains in health-related quality of life. We will conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, providing estimates of the cost per at least 50% reduction in 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores, and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. The measurement of clinical effectiveness and resource use will take place over baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up in the intervention and control groups. We will use a mixed costing methodology (ie, a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches) considering 4 cost categories: intervention (CONEMO related) costs, health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity costs. We will collect unit costs from the RCTs and national administrative databases. The multinational economic evaluations will be fully split analyses with a multicountry costing approach. We will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and present 95% CIs from nonparametric bootstrapping (1000 replicates). We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, we will present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to compare a range of possible cost-effectiveness thresholds. RESULTS: The economic evaluation project had its project charter in June 2018 and is expected to be completed in September 2021. The final results will be available in the second half of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: We expect to assess whether CONEMO plus enhanced usual care is a cost-effective strategy to improve depressive symptoms in this population compared with enhanced usual care. This study will contribute to the evidence base for health managers and policy makers in allocating additional resources for mental health initiatives. It also will provide a basis for further research on how this emerging technology and enhanced usual care can improve mental health and well-being in low- and middle-income countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT12345678 (Brazil) and NCT03026426 (Peru); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02846662 and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03026426. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/26164

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

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

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

International audienc

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome