Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

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

An exploration of IPAC educational intervention research: What do we mean by education?

Background: Education is considered an important component of Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) practice. A shift has occurred from exploring how education plays a role in changing healthcare provider infection control practices to increased interest in the use of multimodal interventions. However, several comprehensive systematic literature reviews have identified theoretical, conceptual and methodological challenges in IPAC educational intervention research. Methods: To gain deeper insight into the challenges, a qualitative review was conducted using a content analysis of 122 papers published between 1989 and 2017. Results: IPAC educational practice and research is predominantly informed by the traditional educational paradigm of knowledge acquisition, with a commitment to quantitative research methodologies that treat education as a static tool. Limited attention is given to educational theories, teaching and learning concepts and instructional design processes. Conclusions: IPAC educational practice is constrained by implicit philosophical assumptions about education as information delivery. This paper proposes a paradigm shift from transmission educational practices to those more attuned to the concepts of teaching and learning. By making this shift, IPAC can begin to address the challenges identified in the literature and explore educational theories, contemporary active and engaged teaching and learning processes, instructional design frameworks, and using innovative educational research methodologies

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage

Background: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage

Background: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials

Cognitive and psychiatric symptom trajectories 2–3 years after hospital admission for COVID-19: a longitudinal, prospective cohort study in the UK

Background: COVID-19 is known to be associated with increased risks of cognitive and psychiatric outcomes after the acute phase of disease. We aimed to assess whether these symptoms can emerge or persist more than 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, to identify which early aspects of COVID-19 illness predict longer-term symptoms, and to establish how these symptoms relate to occupational functioning. Methods: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) who were hospitalised with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 at participating National Health Service hospitals across the UK. In the C-Fog study, a subset of PHOSP-COVID participants who consented to be recontacted for other research were invited to complete a computerised cognitive assessment and clinical scales between 2 years and 3 years after hospital admission. Participants completed eight cognitive tasks, covering eight cognitive domains, from the Cognitron battery, in addition to the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale, and the 20-item Cognitive Change Index (CCI-20) questionnaire to assess subjective cognitive decline. We evaluated how the absolute risks of symptoms evolved between follow-ups at 6 months, 12 months, and 2–3 years, and whether symptoms at 2–3 years were predicted by earlier aspects of COVID-19 illness. Participants completed an occupation change questionnaire to establish whether their occupation or working status had changed and, if so, why. We assessed which symptoms at 2–3 years were associated with occupation change. People with lived experience were involved in the study. Findings: 2469 PHOSP-COVID participants were invited to participate in the C-Fog study, and 475 participants (191 [40·2%] females and 284 [59·8%] males; mean age 58·26 [SD 11·13] years) who were discharged from one of 83 hospitals provided data at the 2–3-year follow-up. Participants had worse cognitive scores than would be expected on the basis of their sociodemographic characteristics across all cognitive domains tested (average score 0·71 SD below the mean [IQR 0·16–1·04]; p<0·0001). Most participants reported at least mild depression (263 [74·5%] of 353), anxiety (189 [53·5%] of 353), fatigue (220 [62·3%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (184 [52·1%] of 353), and more than a fifth reported severe depression (79 [22·4%] of 353), fatigue (87 [24·6%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (88 [24·9%] of 353). Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were worse at 2–3 years than at 6 months or 12 months, with evidence of both worsening of existing symptoms and emergence of new symptoms. Symptoms at 2–3 years were not predicted by the severity of acute COVID-19 illness, but were strongly predicted by the degree of recovery at 6 months (explaining 35·0–48·8% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); by a biocognitive profile linking acutely raised D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits at 6 months (explaining 7·0–17·2% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); and by anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive deficit at 6 months. Objective cognitive deficits at 2–3 years were not predicted by any of the factors tested, except for cognitive deficits at 6 months, explaining 10·6% of their variance. 95 of 353 participants (26·9% [95% CI 22·6–31·8]) reported occupational change, with poor health being the most common reason for this change. Occupation change was strongly and specifically associated with objective cognitive deficits (odds ratio [OR] 1·51 [95% CI 1·04–2·22] for every SD decrease in overall cognitive score) and subjective cognitive decline (OR 1·54 [1·21–1·98] for every point increase in CCI-20). Interpretation: Psychiatric and cognitive symptoms appear to increase over the first 2–3 years post-hospitalisation due to both worsening of symptoms already present at 6 months and emergence of new symptoms. New symptoms occur mostly in people with other symptoms already present at 6 months. Early identification and management of symptoms might therefore be an effective strategy to prevent later onset of a complex syndrome. Occupation change is common and associated mainly with objective and subjective cognitive deficits. Interventions to promote cognitive recovery or to prevent cognitive decline are therefore needed to limit the functional and economic impacts of COVID-19. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Wolfson Foundation, MQ Mental Health Research, MRC-UK Research and Innovation, and National Institute for Health and Care Research.</p