Hospital length of stay for COVID-19 patients: Data-driven methods for forward planning.

From Europe PMC via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: ppub 2021-07-01, epub 2021-07-22Publication status: PublishedFunder: Medical Research Council; Grant(s): MR/R502236/1Funder: Royal Society; Grant(s): 202562/Z/16/Z, INF/R2/180067BackgroundPredicting hospital length of stay (LoS) for patients with COVID-19 infection is essential to ensure that adequate bed capacity can be provided without unnecessarily restricting care for patients with other conditions. Here, we demonstrate the utility of three complementary methods for predicting LoS using UK national- and hospital-level data.MethodOn a national scale, relevant patients were identified from the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS) reports. An Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) survival model and a truncation corrected method (TC), both with underlying Weibull distributions, were fitted to the data to estimate LoS from hospital admission date to an outcome (death or discharge) and from hospital admission date to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission date. In a second approach we fit a multi-state (MS) survival model to data directly from the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT). We develop a planning tool that uses LoS estimates from these models to predict bed occupancy.ResultsAll methods produced similar overall estimates of LoS for overall hospital stay, given a patient is not admitted to ICU (8.4, 9.1 and 8.0 days for AFT, TC and MS, respectively). Estimates differ more significantly between the local and national level when considering ICU. National estimates for ICU LoS from AFT and TC were 12.4 and 13.4 days, whereas in local data the MS method produced estimates of 18.9 days.ConclusionsGiven the complexity and partiality of different data sources and the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is most appropriate to use multiple analysis methods on multiple datasets. The AFT method accounts for censored cases, but does not allow for simultaneous consideration of different outcomes. The TC method does not include censored cases, instead correcting for truncation in the data, but does consider these different outcomes. The MS method can model complex pathways to different outcomes whilst accounting for censoring, but cannot handle non-random case missingness. Overall, we conclude that data-driven modelling approaches of LoS using these methods is useful in epidemic planning and management, and should be considered for widespread adoption throughout healthcare systems internationally where similar data resources exist

Acetylcysteine has No Mechanistic Effect in Patients at Risk of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy - A Failure of Academic Clinical Science

Contrast‐induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major complication of imaging in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The publication of an academic randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 83) reporting oral (N)‐acetylcysteine (NAC) to reduce CIN led to > 70 clinical trials, 23 systematic reviews, and 2 large RCTs showing no benefit. However, no mechanistic studies were conducted to determine how NAC might work; proposed mechanisms included renal artery vasodilatation and antioxidant boosting. We evaluated the proposed mechanisms of NAC action in participants with healthy and diseased kidneys. Four substudies were performed. Two randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, three‐period crossover studies (n = 8) assessed the effect of oral and intravenous (i.v.) NAC in healthy kidneys in the presence/absence of iso‐osmolar contrast (iodixanol). A third crossover study in patients with CKD stage III (CKD3) (n = 8) assessed the effect of oral and i.v. NAC without contrast. A three‐arm randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled parallel‐group study, recruiting patients with CKD3 (n = 66) undergoing coronary angiography, assessed the effect of oral and i.v. NAC in the presence of contrast. We recorded systemic (blood pressure and heart rate) and renal (renal blood flow (RBF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR)) hemodynamics, and antioxidant status, plus biomarkers of renal injury in patients with CKD3 undergoing angiography. Primary outcome for all studies was RBF over 8 hours after the start of i.v. NAC/placebo. NAC at doses used in previous trials of renal prophylaxis was essentially undetectable in plasma after oral administration. In healthy volunteers, i.v. NAC, but not oral NAC, increased blood pressure (mean area under the curve (AUC) mean arterial pressure (MAP): mean difference 29 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.019 vs. placebo), heart rate (28 h⋅bpm, P < 0.001), and RBF (714 h⋅mL/min, 8.0% increase, P = 0.006). Renal vasodilatation also occurred in the presence of contrast (RBF 917 h⋅mL/min, 12% increase, P = 0.005). In patients with CKD3 without contrast, only a rise in heart rate (34 h⋅bpm, P = 0.010) and RBF (288 h⋅mL/min, 6.0% increase, P = 0.001) occurred with i.v. NAC, with no significant effect on blood pressure (MAP rise 26 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.156). Oral NAC showed no effect. In patients with CKD3 receiving contrast, i.v. NAC increased blood pressure (MAP rise 52 h⋅mmHg, P = 0.008) but had no effect on RBF (151 h⋅mL/min, 3.0% increase, P = 0.470), GFR (29 h⋅mL/min/1.73m², P = 0.122), or markers of renal injury. Neither i.v. nor oral NAC affected plasma antioxidant status. We found oral NAC to be poorly absorbed and have no reno‐protective effects. Intravenous, not oral, NAC caused renal artery vasodilatation in healthy volunteers but offered no protection to patients with CKD3 at risk of CIN. These findings emphasize the importance of mechanistic clinical studies before progressing to RCTs for novel interventions. Thousands were recruited to academic clinical trials without the necessary mechanistic studies being performed to confirm the approach had any chance of working

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART) : a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

Funding Information: ISM reports research grants from Menarini, EMA, Sanofi, Health Data Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, and Innovative Medicines Initiative; institutional consultancy income from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work; and personal income from AstraZeneca and Amgen outside the submitted work. TMM reports grants from Menarini/Ipsen/Teijin and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work, and personal income for consultancy from Novartis and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work, and is a trustee of the Scottish Heart Arterial Risk Prevention Society. AGB reports personal income from Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer, Pfizer, Galderma, Zambon, and Novo-Nordisk outside the submitted work. ADS and the University of Dundee hold a European patent for the use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors in treating chest pain in angina pectoris. AW declares personal income for consultancy from AbbVie, Akcea, Albireo, Alexion, Allergan, Amarin, Apsara, Arena, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Autolus, Bayer, Biocryst, Biogen, Biomarin, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calico, Celgene, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Diurnal, Elsai, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gedeon Richter, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Idorsia, Incyte, Intercept, Ionis, Ipsen, Janssen, Jazz, Jcyte, Kite Gilead, LEK, Leo Pharma, Les Laboratoires Servier, Lundbeck, Merck (Merck Sharp & Dohme), Merck-Serono, Mitenyi, Mundibiopharma, Mustang Bio, Mylan, Myovant, Norgine, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orchard, Paion, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PTC, RegenXBio, Rhythm, Sanofi, Santen, Sarepta, SeaGen, Shionogi, Sigmatec, SOBI, Takeda, Tanaya, UCB, and Vertex outside the submitted work. JST declares research funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and NHS England outside the submitted work and membership of a UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline committee on management of atrial fibrillation. All other authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 11/36/41 to ISM, IF, CJH, LW, ADS, AGB, AJA, AW, JST, and TMM). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The study was supported by the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, Support for Science Scotland (Grampian, Highlands, Tayside, Fife, Forth Valley, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lothian, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway, and Lanarkshire), and the NIHR Local Clinical Research Networks (East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, North Thames, Yorkshire and Humber, North East and North Cumbria, North West Coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and South West Peninsula), which assisted with recruitment and other study activities. We thank Public Health Scotland and NHS Digital for providing data linkage. We thank all the participants, physicians, nurses, and other staff who participated in the ALL-HEART study. Funding Information: This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 11/36/41 to ISM, IF, CJH, LW, ADS, AGB, AJA, AW, JST, and TMM). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The study was supported by the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, Support for Science Scotland (Grampian, Highlands, Tayside, Fife, Forth Valley, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lothian, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway, and Lanarkshire), and the NIHR Local Clinical Research Networks (East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, North Thames, Yorkshire and Humber, North East and North Cumbria, North West Coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and South West Peninsula), which assisted with recruitment and other study activities. We thank Public Health Scotland and NHS Digital for providing data linkage. We thank all the participants, physicians, nurses, and other staff who participated in the ALL-HEART study. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licensePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89–1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87–1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research