Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

An Interprofessional Process for the Limitation of Life-Sustaining Treatments at the End of Life in France

International audienceContext: The provision of potentially non-beneficial life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) remains a challenging problem. In 2005, legislation in France established an interprofessional process by which non-beneficial LSTs could be withheld or withdrawn, permitting exploration of the effects of such a legally-protected process and its implementation. Objectives: To characterize intensive care unit (ICU) interprofessional team decision-making and consensus-building practices regarding withholding and withdrawing of LSTs in two Parisian hospitals and to explore physician and nurse perceptions of and experiences with these practices. Methods: This was an exploratory qualitative study utilizing thematic analysis of semi-structured, in-depth interviews of physicians and nurses purposively sampled based on level of training and experience from two hospitals in Paris, France. Results: A total of 25 participants were interviewed. Participants reported that the two Parisian hospitals in this study have each created an interprofessional process for withholding or withdrawing non-beneficial LSTs, providing insight into how norms of decision-making respond to systems-level legal changes. Participants reported that these processes tended to be consistent across several domains: maintaining unified messaging with patients, empowering nurses to participate in end-of-life decision-making, reducing moral distress provoked by end-of-life decisions, and shaping the ethical milieu within which end-of-life decision-making takes place. Conclusions: The architecture of the interprofessional process created at two Parisian hospitals and its perceived benefits may be useful to clinicians and policy-makers attempting to establish processes, policies, or legislation directed at withholding or withdrawing potentially non-beneficial LSTs in the United States and elsewhere