Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19 by Stromal Cells (REALIST-COVID Trial):A Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial

RationaleMesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).ObjectivesWe investigated safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-related ARDS.MethodsThis multicentre, randomised, double-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143) randomised patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS to receive ORBCEL-C (400million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte148).MeasurementsThe primary safety and efficacy outcomes were incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at day 7 respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year, and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at day 0, 4 and 7.Main results60 participants were recruited (final analysis n=30 ORBCEL-C, n=29 placebo: 1 in placebo group withdrew consent). 6 serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C and 3 in the placebo group, RR 2.9(0.6-13.2)p=0.25. Day 7 mean[SD] oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C 98.357.2], placebo 96.667.3). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes, nor mortality at day 28, day 90, 1 or 2 years. There was no difference in prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1year nor significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome.ConclusionORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in moderate-to-severe COVID-related ARDS, but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction. Clinical trial registration available at www.Clinicaltrialsgov, ID: NCT03042143. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

A mobile phone-based care model for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: the care assessment platform (CAP)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cardiac rehabilitation programs offer effective means to prevent recurrence of a cardiac event, but poor uptake of current programs have been reported globally. Home based models are considered as a feasible alternative to avoid various barriers related to care centre based programs. This paper sets out the study design for a clinical trial seeking to test the hypothesis that these programs can be better and more efficiently supported with novel Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We have integrated mobile phones and web services into a comprehensive home- based care model for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Mobile phones with a built-in accelerometer sensor are used to measure physical exercise and WellnessDiary software is used to collect information on patients' physiological risk factors and other health information. Video and teleconferencing are used for mentoring sessions aiming at behavioural modifications through goal setting. The mentors use web-portal to facilitate personal goal setting and to assess the progress of each patient in the program. Educational multimedia content are stored or transferred via messaging systems to the patients phone to be viewed on demand. We have designed a randomised controlled trial to compare the health outcomes and cost efficiency of the proposed model with a traditional community based rehabilitation program. The main outcome measure is adherence to physical exercise guidelines.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will provide evidence on using mobile phones and web services for mentoring and self management in a home-based care model targeting sustainable behavioural modifications in cardiac rehabilitation patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The trial has been registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) with number ACTRN12609000251224.</p

Postpartum psychiatric disorders

Pregnancy is a complex and vulnerable period that presents a number of challenges to women, including the development of postpartum psychiatric disorders (PPDs). These disorders can include postpartum depression and anxiety, which are relatively common, and the rare but more severe postpartum psychosis. In addition, other PPDs can include obsessive–compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and eating disorders. The aetiology of PPDs is a complex interaction of psychological, social and biological factors, in addition to genetic and environmental factors. The goals of treating postpartum mental illness are reducing maternal symptoms and supporting maternal–child and family functioning. Women and their families should receive psychoeducation about the illness, including evidence-based discussions about the risks and benefits of each treatment option. Developing effective strategies in global settings that allow the delivery of targeted therapies to women with different clinical phenotypes and severities of PPDs is essential

A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

Background: Postnatal depression (PND) is a major depressive disorder in the year following childbirth, which impacts on women, their infants and their families. A range of interventions has been developed to prevent PND. Objectives: To (1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and safety of antenatal and postnatal interventions for pregnant and postnatal women to prevent PND; (2) apply rigorous methods of systematic reviewing of quantitative and qualitative studies, evidence synthesis and decision-analytic modelling to evaluate the preventive impact on women, their infants and their families; and (3) estimate cost-effectiveness. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases (from inception to July 2013) in December 2012, and we were updated by electronic alerts until July 2013. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. All universal, selective and indicated preventive interventions for pregnant women and women in the first 6 postnatal weeks were included. All outcomes were included, focusing on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), diagnostic instruments and infant outcomes. The quantitative evidence was synthesised using network meta-analyses (NMAs). A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of interventions contained within the NMA for EPDS values. Results: From 3072 records identified, 122 papers (86 trials) were included in the quantitative review. From 2152 records, 56 papers (44 studies) were included in the qualitative review. The results were inconclusive. The most beneficial interventions appeared to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care [as shown by the mean 12-month EPDS score difference of –1.43 (95% credible interval –4.00 to 1.36)], person-centred approach (PCA)-based and cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention (universal), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)-based intervention and education on preparing for parenting (selective), promoting parent–infant interaction, peer support, IPT-based intervention and PCA-based and CBT-based intervention (indicated). Women valued seeing the same health worker, the involvement of partners and access to several visits from a midwife or health visitor trained in person-centred or cognitive–behavioural approaches. The most cost-effective interventions were estimated to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care (universal), PCA-based intervention (indicated) and IPT-based intervention in the sensitivity analysis (indicated), although there was considerable uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for efficacy data was in excess of £150M for each population. Given the EVPPI values, future trials assessing the relative efficacies of promising interventions appears to represent value for money. Limitations: In the NMAs, some trials were omitted because they could not be connected to the main network of evidence or did not provide EPDS scores. This may have introduced reporting or selection bias. No adjustment was made for the lack of quality of some trials. Although we appraised a very large number of studies, much of the evidence was inconclusive. Conclusions: Interventions warrant replication within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Future work recommendations: Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Future research conducting RCTs to establish which interventions are most clinically effective and cost-effective should be considered

Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute Organ Dysfunction in Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing drug with inotropic and other properties that may improve outcomes in patients with sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to investigate whether levosimendan reduces the severity of organ dysfunction in adults with sepsis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a blinded infusion of levosimendan (at a dose of 0.05 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) for 24 hours or placebo in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the intensive care unit up to day 28 (scores for each of five systems range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction; maximum score, 20). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. RESULTS: The trial recruited 516 patients; 259 were assigned to receive levosimendan and 257 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) SOFA score between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (6.68±3.96 vs. 6.06±3.89; mean difference, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 1.29; P=0.053). Mortality at 28 days was 34.5% in the levosimendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.5 to 11.7; P=0.43). Among patients requiring ventilation at baseline, those in the levosimendan group were less likely than those in the placebo group to be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation over the period of 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P=0.03). More patients in the levosimendan group than in the placebo group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of levosimendan to standard treatment in adults with sepsis was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction or lower mortality. Levosimendan was associated with a lower likelihood of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and a higher risk of supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. (Funded by the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and others; LeoPARDS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN12776039 .)

Preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia before major abdominal surgery (PREVENTT): a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Preoperative anaemia affects a high proportion of patients undergoing major elective surgery and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to test the hypothesis that intravenous iron given to anaemic patients before major open elective abdominal surgery would correct anaemia, reduce the need for blood transfusions, and improve patient outcomes. METHODS In a double-blind, parallel-group randomised trial, we recruited adult participants identified with anaemia at preoperative hospital visits before elective major open abdominal surgery at 46 UK tertiary care centres. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin less than 130 g/L for men and 120 g/L for women. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) via a secure web-based service to receive intravenous iron or placebo 10-42 days before surgery. Intravenous iron was administered as a single 1000 mg dose of ferric carboxymaltose in 100 mL normal saline, and placebo was 100 mL normal saline, both given as an infusion over 15 min. Unblinded study personnel prepared and administered the study drug; participants and other clinical and research staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary endpoints were risk of the composite outcome of blood transfusion or death, and number of blood transfusions from randomisation to 30 days postoperatively. The primary analysis included all randomly assigned patients with data available for the primary endpoints; safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients according to the treatment received. This study is registered, ISRCTN67322816, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS Of 487 participants randomly assigned to placebo (n=243) or intravenous iron (n=244) between Jan 6, 2014, and Sept 28, 2018, complete data for the primary endpoints were available for 474 (97%) individuals. Death or blood transfusion occurred in 67 (28%) of the 237 patients in the placebo group and 69 (29%) of the 237 patients in the intravenous iron group (risk ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·78-1·37; p=0·84). There were 111 blood transfusions in the placebo group and 105 in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·68-1·43; p=0·93). There were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the prespecified safety endpoints. INTERPRETATION Preoperative intravenous iron was not superior to placebo to reduce need for blood transfusion when administered to patients with anaemia 10-42 days before elective major abdominal surgery. FUNDING UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program