Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. METHODS Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. RESULTS Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. CONCLUSIONS Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (\u3e99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was \u3e1) and futility (\u3e95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was \u3c1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

Islet Oxygen Consumption Rate (OCR) Dose Predicts Insulin Independence in Clinical Islet Autotransplantation

Background: Reliable in vitro islet quality assessment assays that can be performed routinely, prospectively, and are able to predict clinical transplant outcomes are needed. In this paper we present data on the utility of an assay based on cellular oxygen consumption rate (OCR) in predicting clinical islet autotransplant (IAT) insulin independence (II). IAT is an attractive model for evaluating characterization assays regarding their utility in predicting II due to an absence of confounding factors such as immune rejection and immunosuppressant toxicity. Methods: Membrane integrity staining (FDA/PI), OCR normalized to DNA (OCR/DNA), islet equivalent (IE) and OCR (viable IE) normalized to recipient body weight (IE dose and OCR dose), and OCR/DNA normalized to islet size index (ISI) were used to characterize autoislet preparations (n = 35). Correlation between pre-IAT islet product characteristics and II was determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: Preparations that resulted in II had significantly higher OCR dose and IE dose (p<0.001). These islet characterization methods were highly correlated with II at 6–12 months post-IAT (area-under-the-curve (AUC) = 0.94 for IE dose and 0.96 for OCR dose). FDA/PI (AUC = 0.49) and OCR/DNA (AUC = 0.58) did not correlate with II. OCR/DNA/ISI may have some utility in predicting outcome (AUC = 0.72). Conclusions: Commonly used assays to determine whether a clinical islet preparation is of high quality prior to transplantation are greatly lacking in sensitivity and specificity. While IE dose is highly predictive, it does not take into account islet cell quality. OCR dose, which takes into consideration both islet cell quality and quantity, may enable a more accurate and prospective evaluation of clinical islet preparations

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19

Background: Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. Objectives: The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. Methods: Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. Results: Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. Conclusions: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis

Fusion transmutation of waste: design and analysis of the in-zinerator concept.

Due to increasing concerns over the buildup of long-lived transuranic isotopes in spent nuclear fuel waste, attention has been given in recent years to technologies that can burn up these species. The separation and transmutation of transuranics is part of a solution to decreasing the volume and heat load of nuclear waste significantly to increase the repository capacity. A fusion neutron source can be used for transmutation as an alternative to fast reactor systems. Sandia National Laboratories is investigating the use of a Z-Pinch fusion driver for this application. This report summarizes the initial design and engineering issues of this ''In-Zinerator'' concept. Relatively modest fusion requirements on the order of 20 MW can be used to drive a sub-critical, actinide-bearing, fluid blanket. The fluid fuel eliminates the need for expensive fuel fabrication and allows for continuous refueling and removal of fission products. This reactor has the capability of burning up 1,280 kg of actinides per year while at the same time producing 3,000 MWth. The report discusses the baseline design, engineering issues, modeling results, safety issues, and fuel cycle impact