Research Staff COVID-19 Pandemic Survey-Results from the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network

Objectives: There is a lack of knowledge about the challenges of researchers who continued in-person research during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Electronic survey assessing work-related exposure to COVID-19, logistical challenges, and procedural changes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. Setting: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Clinical Trial Network Centers. Subjects: Research staff at research Network Sites. Measurements and Main Results: The 37-question survey was completed by 277 individuals from 24 states between 29 September 2020, and 12 December 2020, yielding a response rate of 37.7%. Most respondents (91.5%) indicated that non-COVID-19 research was affected by COVID-19 research studies. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, 20% of respondents were reassigned to different roles at their institution. Many survey takers were exposed to COVID-19 (56%), with more than 50% of researchers requiring a COVID-19 test and 8% testing positive. The fear of infection was 2.7-times higher compared to pre-COVID-19 times. Shortages of personal protective equipment were encountered by 34% of respondents, primarily due to lack of access to N95 masks, followed by gowns and protective eyewear. Personal protective equipment reallocation from research to clinical use was reported by 31% of respondents. Most of the respondents (88.5%), despite these logistical challenges, indicated their willingness to enroll COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the research network were engaged in COVID-19 research despite logistical challenges, limited access to personal protective equipment, and fear of exposure. The research network’s survey experience can inform ongoing policy discussions to create research enterprises that can dexterously refocus research to address the knowledge gaps associated with novel public health emergencies while mitigating the effect of pandemics on existing research projects and research personnel

Validation of a continuous, arterial pressure-based cardiac output measurement: a multicenter, prospective clinical trial

INTRODUCTION: The present study compared measurements of cardiac output by an arterial pressure-based cardiac output (APCO) analysis method with measurement by intermittent thermodilution cardiac output (ICO) via pulmonary artery catheter in a clinical setting. METHODS: The multicenter, prospective clinical investigation enrolled patients with a clinical indication for cardiac output monitoring requiring pulmonary artery and radial artery catheters at two hospitals in the United States, one hospital in France, and one hospital in Belgium. In 84 patients (69 surgical patients), the cardiac output was measured by analysis of the arterial pulse using APCO and was measured via pulmonary artery catheter by ICO; to establish a reference comparison, the cardiac output was measured by continuous cardiac output (CCO). Data were collected continuously by the APCO and CCO technologies, and at least every 4 hours by ICO. No clinical interventions were made as part of the study. RESULTS: For APCO compared with ICO, the bias was 0.20 l/min, the precision was 1.28 l/min, and the limits of agreement were -2.36 l/m to 2.75 l/m. For CCO compared with ICO, the bias was 0.66 l/min, the precision was 1.05 l/min, and the limits of agreement were -1.43 l/m to 2.76 l/m. The ability of APCO and CCO to assess changes in cardiac output was compared with that of ICO. In 96% of comparisons, APCO tracked the change in cardiac output in the same direction as ICO. The magnitude of change was comparable 59% of the time. For CCO, 95% of comparisons were in the same direction, with 58% of those changes being of similar magnitude. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients in the intensive care unit, continuous measurement of cardiac output using either APCO or CCO is comparable with ICO. Further study in more homogeneous populations may refine specific situations where APCO reliability is strongest

Association of Elevated Plasma Interleukin 18 Level With Increased Mortality in a Clinical Trial of Statin Treatment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVE: A high plasma level of inflammasome mediator interleukin-18 was associated with mortality in observational acute respiratory distress syndrome cohorts. Statin exposure increases both inflammasome activation and lung injury in mouse models. We tested whether randomization to statin therapy correlated with increased interleukin-18 in the ARDS Network Statins for Acutely Injured Lungs from Sepsis trial. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Multicenter North American clinical trial, the ARDS Network Statins for Acutely Injured Lungs from Sepsis. PATIENTS: Six hundred eighty-three subjects with infection-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, representing 92% of the original trial population. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment of rosuvastatin or placebo for up to 28 days or 3 days after ICU discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured plasma interleukin-18 levels in all Statins for Acutely Injured Lungs from Sepsis patients with sample available at day 0 (baseline, n = 683) and day 3 (after randomization, n = 588). We tested the association among interleukin-18 level at baseline, rising interleukin-18, and the impact of statin therapy on 60-day mortality, adjusting for severity of illness. Baseline plasma interleukin-18 level greater than or equal to 800 pg/mL was highly associated with 60-day mortality, with a hazard of death of 2.3 (95% CI, 1.7-3.1). Rising plasma interleukin-18 was also associated with increased mortality. For each unit increase in log2 (interleukin-18) at day 3 compared with baseline, the hazard of death increased by 2.3 (95% CI, 1.5-3.5). Subjects randomized to statin were significantly more likely to experience a rise in plasma interleukin-18 levels. Subjects with acute kidney injury, shock, low baseline interleukin-18, and those not receiving systemic corticosteroids were more likely to experience rising interleukin-18. Randomization to statin therapy was associated with rising in interleukin-18 in all of those subsets, however. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated baseline plasma interleukin-18 was associated with higher mortality in sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. A rise in plasma interleukin-18 was also associated with increased mortality and was more common in subjects randomized to statin therapy in this clinical trial

Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥65 Years - United States, January-March 2021

Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk