9 research outputs found

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    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

    The effect of a liberal approach to glucose control in critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial

    No full text
    Rationale: Blood glucose concentrations affect outcomes in critically ill patients, but the optimal target blood glucose range in those with type 2 diabetes is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of a “liberal” approach to targeted blood glucose range during ICU admission. Methods: This mutlicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial included 419 adult patients with type 2 diabetes expected to be in the ICU on at least three consecutive days. In the intervention group intravenous insulin was commenced at a blood glucose >252 mg/dl and titrated to a target range of 180–252 mg/dl. In the comparator group insulin was commenced at a blood glucose >180 mg/dl and titrated to a target range of 108–180 mg/dl. The primary outcome was incident hypoglycemia (<72 mg/dl). Secondary outcomes included glucose metrics and clinical outcomes. Measurements and Main Results: By Day 28, at least one episode of hypoglycemia occurred in 10 of 210 (5%) patients assigned the intervention and 38 of 209 (18%) patients assigned the comparator (incident rate ratio, 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09 to 0.49]; P < 0.001). Those assigned the intervention had greater blood glucose concentrations (daily mean, minimum, maximum), less glucose variability, and less relative hypoglycemia (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). By Day 90, 62 of 210 (29.5%) in the intervention and 52 of 209 (24.9%) in the comparator group had died (absolute difference, 4.6 percentage points [95% CI, −3.9% to 13.2%]; P = 0.29). Conclusions: A liberal approach to blood glucose targets reduced incident hypoglycemia but did not improve patient-centered outcomes. Clinical trial registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12616001135404)

    TUNABLE DIODE LASER ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY (TDLAS) IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES – A REVIEW

    No full text

    Smectites and related silicates

    No full text

    Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

    No full text
    International audienc
    corecore