Repurposed immunomodulatory drugs for Covid-19 in pre-ICu patients - mulTi-Arm Therapeutic study in pre-ICu patients admitted with Covid-19 – Repurposed Drugs (TACTIC-R): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Objectives: To determine if a specific immunomodulatory intervention reduces progression of COVID-19-related disease to organ failure or death, compared to standard of care (SoC). Trial design: Randomised, parallel 3-arm (1:1:1 ratio), open-label, Phase IV platform trial of immunomodulatory therapies in patients with late stage 1 or stage 2 COVID-19-related disease, with a diagnosis based either on a positive assay or high suspicion of COVID-19 infection by clinical and/or radiological assessment. Participants: Patients aged 18 and over, with a clinical picture strongly suggestive of COVID-19-related disease (with/without a positive COVID-19 test) AND a Risk count (as defined below) >3 OR ≥3 if risk count includes “Radiographic severity score >3”. A risk count is calculated by the following features on admission (1 point for each): radiographic severity score >3, male gender, non-white ethnicity, diabetes, hypertension, neutrophils >8.0 x109/L, age >40 years and CRP >40 mg/L. Patients should be considered an appropriate subject for intervention with immunomodulatory therapies in the opinion of the investigator and be able to be maintained on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis during the inpatient dosing period, according to local guidelines. The complete inclusion and exclusion criteria as detailed in the additional file 1 should be fulfilled. Patients will be enrolled prior to the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, cardiac or renal support. Participants will be recruited across multiple centres including initially at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, University Hospital of Wales, Gloucestershire Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. Intervention and comparator: Each active comparator arm will be compared against standard of care (SoC). The immunomodulatory drugs were selected from a panel of licenced candidates by a drug evaluation committee, which considered potential efficacy, potential toxicity, scalability and novelty of each strategy. The initial active arms comprise baricitinib and ravulizumab. Baricitinib will be given 4 mg orally (once daily (OD)) on days 1-14 or until day of discharge. The dose will be reduced to 2 mg OD for patients aged > 75 years and those with an estimated Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance of 30-60 ml/min. Ravulizumab will be administered intravenously once according to the licensed weight-based dosing regimen (see Additional file 1). Each active arm will be compared with standard of care alone. No comparisons will be made between active arms in this platform trial. Main outcomes: The primary outcome is the incidence (from baseline up to Day 14) of any one of the events (whichever comes first): death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extra corporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support (inotropes or balloon pump), or renal failure (estimated Cockcroft Gault creatinine clearance <15ml/min). Randomisation: Eligible patients will be randomised using a central web-based randomisation service (Sealed Envelope) in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified by site to one of the treatment arms or SoC. Blinding (masking): This is an open-label trial. Data analysis will not be blinded. Numbers to be randomised (sample size): There is no fixed sample size for this study. Serial interim analyses will be triggered by an Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC), including analysis after 125 patients are recruited to each arm, 375 in total assuming 3 arms. Additional interim analyses are projected after 229 patients per arm, and potentially then after 469 per arm, but additional analyses may be triggered by the IDMC. Trial Status: TACTIC-R Protocol version number 2.0 date May 20, 2020, recruitment began May 7, 2020 and the end trial will be the date 18 months after the last patient’s last visit. The recruitment end date cannot yet be accurately predicted. Trial registration: Registered on EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT Number: 2020-001354-22 Registered: 6 May 2020 It was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464) and on ISRCTN (ISRCTN11188345) Full protocol: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial

Background From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). Findings Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62–1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88–2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. Interpretation Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Investigating the Lowest Threshold of Vascular Benefits from LDL Cholesterol Lowering with a PCSK9 mAb Inhibitor (Alirocumab) in Patients with Stable Cardiovascular Disease (INTENSITY-HIGH): protocol and study rationale for a randomised, open label, parallel group, mechanistic study

Introduction Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a strong independent risk predictor of cardiovascular (CV) events, while interventions to reduce it remain the only evidence-based approach to reduce CV morbidity and mortality. Secondary prevention statin trials in combination with ezetimibe and/or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors showed that there is no ‘J shaped curve’ in LDL-C levels with regard to CV outcomes. The lowest threshold beyond which reduction of LDL-C confers no further CV benefits has not been identified.The INTENSITY-HIGH study seeks to explore physiological mechanisms mediating CV benefits of LDL-C lowering by PCSK9 inhibition in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study examines the changes in measures of endothelial function and vascular inflammation imaging following intervention with PCSK9 and against standard of care.Methods and analysis This is a single-centre, randomised, open label, parallel group, mechanistic physiological study. It will include approximately 60 subjects with established CVD, with LDL-C of &lt;4.1 mmol/L on high-intensity statins. All eligible participants will undergo 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (FDG-PET/CT) scanning of the aorta and carotid arteries, as well as baseline endothelial function assessment. Subsequently, they will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to either alirocumab 150 mg or ezetimibe 10 mg/day. Repeat FDG-PET/CT scan and vascular assessments will be undertaken after 8 weeks of treatment. Any changes in these parameters will be correlated with changes in lipid levels and systemic inflammation biomarkers.Ethics and dissemination The study received a favourable opinion from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4, was registered on clinicaltrials.gov and conformed to International Conference for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Good Clinical Practice. The results of this study will be reported through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration number NCT03355027

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (160-169), 10.1007/s00134-020-06234-9)

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The members of the ESICM Trials Group Collaborators were not shown in the article but only in the ESM. The full list of collaborators is shown below. The original article has been corrected

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat