Promoting Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine through the online resource ‘EBVM Learning’: User feedback

‘EBVM Learning’ is a freely available resource created in 2015 by an international team with the support of RCVS Knowledge. The resource comprises a series of online modules teaching the fundamental concepts of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply & Assess) supported by case studies, exercises, worked examples and quizzes. The aim of the current study (undertaken in 2019) was to review ‘EBVM Learning’ to ensure its ongoing relevance and usefulness to the range of learners engaged in EBVM. Feedback was gathered from stakeholder groups using website statistics and feedback forms, a survey and semi-structured interviews to provide a combination of quantitative and qualitative data.Website statistics revealed an international audience and a steady increase in visitors exceeding 1,000 per month in August 2020. Feedback via the online form (n=35) and survey (n=71) indicated that the resource was well structured, with an appropriate level and amount of content, useful examples and quizzes and the majority of respondents would use it again. Semi-structured interviews of educators (n=5) and veterinarians (n=8) identified three themes: features of the ‘EBVM Learning’ resource (strengths, suggestions for improvement), embedding the resource in education (undergraduate, postgraduate) and promoting EBVM (challenges, motivation for engagement). At a project team workshop the results were used to plan updates to the existing content and to identify new ways to promote learning and engagement. An updated version of ‘EBVM Learning’ was developed.‘EBVM Learning’ is helping to produce the next generation of evidence-based practitioners and enabling to engage in the concepts of EBVM as part of their clinical practice

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

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