Posttransplant survival is not diminished in heart transplant recipients bridged with implantable left ventricular assist devices

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare posttransplantation morbidity and mortality in orthotopic heart transplant recipients bridged to transplant with a left ventricular assist device with nonbridged recipients. To account for potential differences across device types, we stratified bridge-to-transplant recipients by type of ventricular assist device: extracorporeal (EXTRA), paracorporeal (PARA), and intracorporeal (INTRA).MethodsThe United Network for Organ Sharing provided de-identified patient-level data. The study population included 10,668 orthotopic heart transplant recipients aged 18 years old or older and undergoing transplantation between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2006. Follow-up data were provided through August 3, 2008, with a mean follow-up time of 3.17 ± 2.15 years (range, 0–8.11 years). The primary outcome was actuarial posttransplant graft survival. Other outcomes of interest included infection, stroke, and dialysis during the transplant hospitalization; primary graft failure at 30 days; transplant hospitalization length of stay; and long-term complications including diabetes mellitus, transplant coronary artery disease, and chronic dialysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and overall graft survival, and multivariable logistic regression analysis (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn multivariable Cox regression analysis, when compared with the nonbridged group, risk-adjusted greater than 90-day graft survival was diminished among the EXTRA group (hazard ratio = 3.54, 2.28–5.51, P < .001), but not the INTRA group (1.04, 0.719–1.51, P = .834) or the PARA group (1.06, 0.642–1.76, P = .809). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted graft survival across the 4 groups during the 90-days to 1-year or 1- to 5-year intervals. However, at more than 5 years, risk-adjusted graft survival in the INTRA group (0.389, 0.205–0.738, P = .004) was better than in the nonbridged group. The EXTRA, PARA, and INTRA groups all experienced increased risks of infection. The EXTRA group had increased risks of dialysis, stroke, and primary graft failure at 30 days, whereas neither the PARA nor the INTRA group differed from the nonbridged group. Long-term complications did not differ by group.ConclusionThe use of implantable left ventricular assist devices as bridges to transplantation, including both intracorporeal and paracorporeal devices, is not associated with diminished posttransplant survival. However, 90-day survival was diminished in recipients bridged with extracorporeal devices

Designing comparative effectiveness trials of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: Experience of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network

ObjectiveSince the introduction of the cut-and-sew Cox maze procedure for atrial fibrillation, there has been substantial innovation in techniques for ablation. Use of alternative energy sources for ablation simplified the procedure and has resulted in dramatic increase in the number of patients with atrial fibrillation treated by surgical ablation. Despite its increasingly widespread adoption, there is lack of rigorous clinical evidence to establish this procedure as an effective clinical therapy.MethodsThis article describes a comparative effectiveness randomized trial, supported by the Cardiothoracic Surgical Clinical Trials Network, of surgical ablation with left atrial appendage closure versus left atrial appendage closure alone in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing mitral valve surgery. Nested within this trial is a further randomized comparison of 2 different lesions sets: pulmonary vein isolation and the full maze lesion set.ResultsThis article addresses trial design challenges, including how best to characterize the target population, operationalize freedom from atrial fibrillation as a primary end point, account for the impact of antiarrhythmic drugs, and measure and analyze secondary end points, such as postoperative atrial fibrillation load.ConclusionsThis article concludes by discussing how insights that emerge from this trial may affect surgical practice and guide future research in this area

Lessons from an international trial evaluating vaccination strategies for recovered inpatients with COVID-19 (VATICO)

The protection provided by natural versus hybrid immunity from COVID-19 is unclear. We reflect on the challenges from trying to conduct a randomized post-SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccination trial study with rapidly evolving scientific data, vaccination guidelines, varying international policies, difficulties with vaccine availability, vaccine hesitancy, and a constantly evolving virus

Contemporary specificities of labour in the health care sector: introductory notes for discussion

BACKGROUND: This paper combines the literature on public health, on economics of health and on economics of technological innovation to discuss the peculiarities of labour in the health care sector. METHOD AND FRAMEWORK: The starting point is the investigation of the economic peculiarities of medical care. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: This investigation leads to the identification of the prevalence of non-market forms of medical care in the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Furthermore, the health care system has a distinctive characteristic from other economic sectors: it is the intersection between social welfare and innovation systems. The relationship between technological innovation and cost in the health care sector is surveyed. Finally, the Brazilian case is discussed as an example of a developing country. CONCLUSION: The peculiarities of labour in the health care sector suggest the need to recognize the worth of sectoral labour and to cease to treat it separately. This process should take into account the rapid development of the health innovation system and one important consequence: the obsolescence of the acquired knowledge. One way to dignify labour is to implement continued education and training of health professions personnel

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed

Tixagevimab–cilgavimab for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Tixagevimab–cilgavimab is a neutralising monoclonal antibody combination hypothesised to improve outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We aimed to compare tixagevimab–cilgavimab versus placebo, in patients receiving remdesivir and other standard care. Methods: In a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, adults with symptoms for up to 12 days and hospitalised for COVID-19 at 81 sites in the USA, Europe, Uganda, and Singapore were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tixagevimab 300 mg–cilgavimab 300 mg or placebo, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care. Patients were excluded if they had acute organ failure including receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressor therapy, mechanical circulatory support, or new renal replacement therapy. The study drug was prepared by an unmasked pharmacist; study participants, site study staff, investigators, and clinical providers were masked to study assignment. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery up to day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home after hospital discharge, with co-primary analyses for the full cohort and for participants who were neutralising antibody-negative at baseline. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as participants who received a complete or partial infusion of tixagevimab–cilgavimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978 and the participant follow-up is ongoing. Findings: From Feb 10 to Sept 30, 2021, 1455 patients were randomly assigned and 1417 in the primary modified intention-to-treat population were infused with tixagevimab–cilgavimab (n=710) or placebo (n=707). The estimated cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 89% for tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 86% for placebo group participants at day 90 in the full cohort (recovery rate ratio [RRR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·97–1·20]; p=0·21). Results were similar in the seronegative subgroup (RRR 1·14 [0·97–1·34]; p=0·13). Mortality was lower in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group (61 [9%]) versus placebo group (86 [12%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·032). The composite safety outcome occurred in 178 (25%) tixagevimab–cilgavimab and 212 (30%) placebo group participants (HR 0·83 [0·68–1·01]; p=0·059). Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (5%) participants in the tixagevimab–cilgavimab group and 38 (5%) in the placebo group. Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving remdesivir and other standard care, tixagevimab–cilgavimab did not improve the primary outcome of time to sustained recovery but was safe and mortality was lower. Funding: US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Operation Warp Speed