Clinician preference instrumental variable analysis of the effectiveness of magnesium supplementation for atrial fibrillation prophylaxis in critical care

Atrial fibrillation is a frequently encountered condition in critical illness and causes adverse effects including haemodynamic decompensation, stroke and prolonged hospital stay. It is a common practice in critical care to supplement serum magnesium for the purpose of preventing episodes of atrial fibrillation. However, no randomised studies support this practice in the non-cardiac surgery critical care population, and the effectiveness of magnesium supplementation is unclear. We sought to investigate the effectiveness of magnesium supplementation in preventing the onset of atrial fibrillation in a mixed critical care population. We conducted a single centre retrospective observational study of adult critical care patients. We utilised a natural experiment design, using the supplementation preference of the bedside critical care nurse as an instrumental variable. Using routinely collected electronic patient data, magnesium supplementation opportunities were defined and linked to the bedside nurse. Nurse preference for administering magnesium was obtained using multilevel modelling. The results were used to define "liberal" and "restrictive" supplementation groups, which were inputted into an instrumental variable regression to obtain an estimate of the effect of magnesium supplementation. 9114 magnesium supplementation opportunities were analysed, representing 2137 critical care admissions for 1914 patients. There was significant variation in magnesium supplementation practices attributable to the individual nurse, after accounting for covariates. The instrumental variable analysis showed magnesium supplementation was associated with a 3% decreased relative risk of experiencing an atrial fibrillation event (95% CI − 0.06 to − 0.004, p = 0.03). This study supports the strategy of routine supplementation, but further work is required to identify optimal serum magnesium targets for atrial fibrillation prophylaxis

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with nonhypoxic ischaemic acute brain injuries and conditions in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Brains)

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults who have nonhypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy acute brain injuries and conditions and are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Brains trial. Design, setting, and participants: Mega-ROX Brains is an international randomised clinical trial, which will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-participant, registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We expect to enrol between 7500 and 9500 participants with nonhypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy acute brain injuries and conditions who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 d from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of participants discharged home. Results and conclusions: Mega-ROX Brains will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy regimens on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults in the ICU with acute brain injuries and conditions. The protocol and planned analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12620000391976)

Sample multiplexing-based targeted pathway proteomics with real-time analytics reveals the impact of genetic variation on protein expression.

Targeted proteomics enables hypothesis-driven research by measuring the cellular expression of protein cohorts related by function, disease, or class after perturbation. Here, we present a pathway-centric approach and an assay builder resource for targeting entire pathways of up to 200 proteins selected from \u3e10,000 expressed proteins to directly measure their abundances, exploiting sample multiplexing to increase throughput by 16-fold. The strategy, termed GoDig, requires only a single-shot LC-MS analysis, ~1 µg combined peptide material, a list of up to 200 proteins, and real-time analytics to trigger simultaneous quantification of up to 16 samples for hundreds of analytes. We apply GoDig to quantify the impact of genetic variation on protein expression in mice fed a high-fat diet. We create several GoDig assays to quantify the expression of multiple protein families (kinases, lipid metabolism- and lipid droplet-associated proteins) across 480 fully-genotyped Diversity Outbred mice, revealing protein quantitative trait loci and establishing potential linkages between specific proteins and lipid homeostasis

Quality metrics for the evaluation of Rapid Response Systems: Proceedings from the third international consensus conference on Rapid Response Systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant deterioration of patients admitted to general wards is a recognized complication of hospital care. Rapid Response Systems (RRS) aim to reduce the number of avoidable adverse events. The authors aimed to develop a core quality metric for the evaluation of RRS. METHODS: We conducted an international consensus process. Participants included patients, carers, clinicians, research scientists, and members of the International Society for Rapid Response Systems with representatives from Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia and the US. Scoping reviews of the literature identified potential metrics. We used a modified Delphi methodology to arrive at a list of candidate indicators that were reviewed for feasibility and applicability across a broad range of healthcare systems including low and middle-income countries. The writing group refined recommendations and further characterized measurement tools. RESULTS: Consensus emerged that core outcomes for reporting for quality improvement should include ten metrics related to structure, process and outcome for RRS with outcomes following the domains of the quadruple aim. The conference recommended that hospitals should collect data on cardiac arrests and their potential predictability, timeliness of escalation, critical care interventions and presence of written treatment goals for patients remaining on general wards. Unit level reporting should include the presence of patient activated rapid response and metrics of organizational culture. We suggest two exploratory cost metrics to underpin urgently needed research in this area. CONCLUSION: A consensus process was used to develop ten metrics for better understanding the course and care of deteriorating ward patients. Others are proposed for further development

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (O

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU

Healthcare provider and patient perspectives on access to and management of atrial fibrillation in the Northern Province, Sri Lanka: a rapid evaluation of barriers and facilitators to care.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia that affects 60 million people worldwide. Limited evidence on AF management exists from low- and middle-income countries and none from Sri Lanka. We aimed to investigate the existing AF care pathway and patients' perception on AF management to identify barriers and enablers for optimal AF care in Northern Province, Sri Lanka.MethodsA rapid evaluation was undertaken with use of qualitative methods. Local healthcare providers (HCPs) mapped the intended pathway of care for AF patients which was then explored and annotated through 12 iterative sessions with additional HCPs. Topics of inefficiencies identified from the finalised map were used to guide focus group discussions (FGDs) with AF patients. AF patients who were attending the anticoagulation clinic at the only tertiary hospital in Northern Province were recruited and invited to participate using purposive sampling. The topic guide was developed in collaboration with local clinicians and qualitative experts. FGDs were conducted in the native Tamil language and all sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using a deductive approach.ResultsThe mapped pathway revealed inefficiencies in referral, diagnosis and ongoing management. These were explored through three FGDs conducted with 25 AF patients aged 25 to 70 years. Two key themes that contributed to and resulted in delays in accessing care and ongoing management were health seeking behaviours and atomistic healthcare structures. Four cross-cutting sub-themes identified were decision making, paternalistic approach to care, cost impacts and lifestyle impacts. These are discussed across 10 unique categories with consideration of the local context.ConclusionsStrengthening primary healthcare services, improving public health literacy regarding AF and building patient autonomy whilst understanding the importance of their daily life and family involvement may be advantageous in tackling the inefficiencies in the current AF care pathway in Sri Lanka

The fragmented COVID-19 therapeutics research landscape: a living systematic review of clinical trial registrations evaluating priority pharmacological interventions. [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]

Background: Many available medicines have been evaluated as potential repurposed treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We summarise the registered study landscape for 32 priority pharmacological treatments identified following consultation with external experts of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition. Methods: All eligible trial registry records identified by systematic searches of the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as of 26th May 2021 were reviewed and extracted. A descriptive summary of study characteristics was performed. Results: We identified 1,314 registered studies that included at least one of the 32 priority pharmacological interventions. The majority (1,043, 79%) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The sample size of the RCTs identified was typically small (median (25th, 75th percentile) sample size = 140 patients (70, 383)), i.e. individually powered only to show very large effects. The most extensively evaluated medicine was hydroxychloroquine (418 registered studies). Other widely studied interventions were convalescent plasma (n=208), ritonavir (n=189) usually combined with lopinavir (n=181), and azithromycin (n=147). Very few RCTs planned to recruit participants in low-income countries (n=14; 1.3%). A minority of studies (348, 26%) indicated a willingness to share individual participant data. The living systematic review data are available at https://iddo.cognitive.city Conclusions: There are many registered studies planning to evaluate available medicines as potential repurposed treatments of COVID-19. Most of these planned studies are small, and therefore substantially underpowered for most relevant endpoints. Very few are large enough to have any chance of providing enough convincing evidence to change policies and practices. The sharing of individual participant data (IPD) from these studies would allow pooled IPD meta-analyses which could generate definitive conclusions, but most registered studies did not indicate that they were willing to share their data