Search

Background/Aims Fibrinolytic therapy with tenecteplase has been proposed for patients with pulmonary embolism but the optimal dose is unknown. Higher-than-necessary dosing is likely to cause excess bleeding. We designed an adaptive clinical trial to identify the minimum and assumed safest dose of tenecteplase that maintains efficacy. Methods We propose a Bayesian adaptive, placebo-controlled, group-sequential dose-finding trial using response-adaptive randomization to preferentially allocate subjects to the most promising doses, dual analyses strategies (continuous and dichotomized) using a gatekeeping approach to maximize clinical impact, and interim stopping rules to efficiently address competing trial objectives. The operating characteristics of the proposed design were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation across multiple hypothetical efficacy scenarios. Results Simulation demonstrated response-adaptive randomization can preferentially allocate subjects to doses which appear to be performing well based on interim data. Interim decision-making, including the interim evaluation of both analysis strategies with gatekeeping, allows the trial to continue enrollment when success with the dichotomized analysis strategy appears sufficiently likely and to stop enrollment and declare superiority based on the continuous analysis strategy when there is little chance of ultimately declaring superiority with the dichotomized analysis. Conclusion The proposed design allows evaluation of a greater number of dose levels than would be possible with a non-adaptive design and avoids the need to choose either the continuous or the dichotomized analysis strategy for the primary endpoint.

Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream (SAB) infection is a common and severe infectious disease, with a 90-day mortality of 15%–30%. Despite this

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.

Emergency Medical Services personnel are often the first to intervene in the care of critically ill children. Airway management is a fundamental step in prehospital resuscitation, yet there is significant variation in current prehospital airway management practices. Our objective is to present a methodologic approach to determine the optimal strategy for prehospital pediatric airway management. We describe the conceptual premise for the Pediatric Prehospital Airway Resuscitation Trial, a novel Bayesian adaptive sequential platform trial. We developed an innovative design to enable comparison of the three predominant prehospital pediatric airway techniques (bag-mask-ventilation, supraglottic airway insertion, and endotracheal intubation) in three distinct disease groups (cardiac arrest, major trauma, and other respiratory failure). We used a Bayesian statistical approach to provide flexible modeling that can adapt based on prespecified rules according to accumulating trial data with patient enrollment continuing until stopping rules are met. The approach also allows the comparison of multiple interventions in sequence across the different disease states. This Bayesian hierarchical model will be the primary analysis method for the Pediatric Prehospital Airway Resuscitation Trial. The model integrates information across subgroups, a technique known as “borrowing” to generate accurate global and subgroup-specific estimates of treatment effects and enables comparisons of airway intervention arms within the overarching trial. We will use this Bayesian hierarchical linear model that adjusts for subgroup to estimate treatment effects within each subgroup. The model will predict a patient-centered score of 30-day intensive care unit-free survival using arm, subgroup, and emergency medical services agency as predictors. The novel approach of Pediatric Prehospital Airway Resuscitation Trial will provide a feasible method to determine the optimal strategy for prehospital pediatric airway management and may transform the design of future prehospital resuscitation trials.

Background: Platelet transfusion is a potentially life-saving therapy for actively bleeding patients, ranging from those undergoing planned surgical procedures to those suffering unexpected traumatic injuries. Platelets are currently stored at room temperature (20°C–24°C) with a maximum storage duration of 7 days after donation. The CHIlled Platelet Study trial will compare the efficacy and safety of standard room temperature–stored platelets with platelets that are cold-stored (1°C–6°C), that is, chilled, with a maximum of storage up to 21 days in adult and pediatric patients undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures. Methods/Results: CHIlled Platelet Study will use a Bayesian adaptive design to identify the range of cold storage durations for platelets that are non-inferior to standard room temperature–stored platelets. If cold-stored platelets are non-inferior at durations greater than 7 days, a gated superiority analysis will identify durations for which cold-stored platelets may be superior to standard platelets. We present example simulations of the CHIlled Platelet Study design and discuss unique challenges in trial implementation. The CHIlled Platelet Study trial has been funded and will be implemented in approximately 20 clinical centers. Early randomization to enable procurement of cold-stored platelets with different storage durations will be required, as well as a platelet tracking system to eliminate platelet wastage and maximize trial efficiency and economy. Discussion: The CHIlled Platelet Study trial will determine whether cold-stored platelets are non-inferior to platelets stored at room temperature, and if so, will determine the maximum duration (up to 21 days) of storage that maintains non-inferiority. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04834414

High-quality evidence guiding optimal transfusion and other supportive therapies to reduce bleeding is needed to improve outcomes for patients with either severe bleeding or hemostatic disorders that are associated with poor outcomes. Alongside challenges in performing high-quality clinical trials in patient populations who are at risk of bleeding or who are actively bleeding, the interpretation of research evaluating hemostatic agents has been limited by inconsistency in the choice of primary trial outcomes. This lack of standardization of primary endpoints or outcomes decreases the ability of clinicians to assess the validity of endpoints and compare research results across studies, impairs meta-analytic efforts, and, ultimately, delays the translation of research results into clinical practice. To address this challenge, an international panel of experts was convened by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the US Department of Defense on September 23 and 24, 2019, to develop expert opinion, consensus-based recommendations for primary clinical trial outcomes for pivotal trials in pediatric and adult patients with six categories in various clinical settings. This publication documents the conference proceedings from the workshop funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the US Department of Defense that consolidated expert opinion regarding clinically meaningful outcomes across a wide range of disciplines to provide guidance for outcomes of future trials of hemostatic products and agents for patients with active bleeding.

This cross-sectional study compares race and ethnicity reporting in 3 medical journals before and after implementation of updated guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in August 2021.

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.

National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), measured a few hours to days after stroke onset, is an attractive outcome measure for stroke research. NIHSS at the time of presentation (baseline NIHSS) strongly predicts the follow-up NIHSS. Because of the need to account for the baseline NIHSS in the analysis of follow-up NIHSS as an outcome measure, a common and intuitive approach is to define study outcome as the change in NIHSS from baseline to follow-up (ΔNIHSS). However, this approach has important limitations. Analyzing ΔNIHSS implies a very strong assumption about the relationship between baseline and follow-up NIHSS that is unlikely to be satisfied, drawing into question the validity of the resulting statistical analysis. This reduces the precision of the estimates of treatment effects and the power of clinical trials that use this approach to analysis. ANCOVA allows for the analysis of follow-up NIHSS as the dependent variable while adjusting for baseline NIHSS as a covariate in the model and addresses several challenges of using ΔNIHSS outcome using simple bivariate comparisons (eg, a t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum, linear regression without adjustment for baseline) for stroke research. In this article, we use clinical trial simulations to illustrate that variability in NIHSS outcome is less when follow-up NIHSS is adjusted for baseline compared to ΔNIHSS and how a reduction in this variability improves the power. We outline additional, important clinical and statistical arguments to support the superiority of ANCOVA using the final measurement of the NIHSS adjusted for baseline over, and caution against using, the simple bivariate comparison of absolute NIHSS change (ie, delta).

Objective To address the clinical and regulatory challenges of optimal primary endpoints for bleeding patients by developing consensus-based recommendations for primary clinical outcomes for pivotal trials in patients within 6 categories of significant bleeding, (1) traumatic injury, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) cardiac surgery, (4) gastrointestinal hemorrhage, (5) inherited bleeding disorders, and (6) hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. Background A standardized primary outcome in clinical trials evaluating hemostatic products and strategies for the treatment of clinically significant bleeding will facilitate the conduct, interpretation, and translation into clinical practice of hemostasis research and support alignment among funders, investigators, clinicians, and regulators. Methods An international panel of experts was convened by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the United States Department of Defense on September 23 and 24, 2019. For patients suffering hemorrhagic shock, the 26 trauma working-group members met for almost a year, utilizing biweekly phone conferences and then an in-person meeting, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of previous high quality studies. The selection of the recommended primary outcome was guided by goals of patient-centeredness, expected or demonstrated sensitivity to beneficial treatment effects, biologic plausibility, clinical and logistical feasibility, and broad applicability. Conclusions For patients suffering hemorrhagic shock, and especially from truncal hemorrhage, the recommended primary outcome was 3 to 6-hour all-cause mortality, chosen to coincide with the physiology of hemorrhagic death and to avoid bias from competing risks. Particular attention was recommended to injury and treatment time, as well as robust assessments of multiple safety related outcomes.

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled “a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform.” The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Hypothesis:Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems have developed protocols for prehospital activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory for patients with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to decrease first-medical-contact-to-balloon time (FMC2B). The rate of “false positive” prehospital activations is high. In order to decrease this rate and expedite care for patients with true STEMI, the American Heart Association (AHA; Dallas, Texas USA) developed the Mission Lifeline PreAct STEMI algorithm, which was implemented in Los Angeles County (LAC; California USA) in 2015. The hypothesis of this study was that implementation of the PreAct algorithm would increase the positive predictive value (PPV) of prehospital activation.Methods:This is an observational pre-/post-study of the effect of the implementation of the PreAct algorithm for patients with suspected STEMI transported to one of five STEMI Receiving Centers (SRCs) within the LAC Regional System. The primary outcome was the PPV of cardiac catheterization laboratory activation for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). The secondary outcome was FMC2B.Results:A total of 1,877 patients were analyzed for the primary outcome in the pre-intervention period and 405 patients in the post-intervention period. There was an overall decrease in cardiac catheterization laboratory activations, from 67% in the pre-intervention period to 49% in the post-intervention period (95% CI for the difference, -14% to -22%). The overall rate of cardiac catheterization declined in post-intervention period as compared the pre-intervention period, from 34% to 30% (95% CI, for the difference -7.6% to 0.4%), but actually increased for subjects who had activation (48% versus 58%; 95% CI, 4.6%-15.0%). Implementation of the PreAct algorithm was associated with an increase in the PPV of activation for PCI or CABG from 37.9% to 48.6%. The overall odds ratio (OR) associated with the intervention was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.8). The effect of the intervention was to decrease variability between medical centers. There was no associated change in average FMC2B.Conclusions:The implementation of the PreAct algorithm in the LAC EMS system was associated with an overall increase in the PPV of cardiac catheterization laboratory activation.

Objective:Low rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were identified as a shortcoming in the “chain of survival” for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care in the Korean city of Ansan. This study sought to evaluate the effect of an initiative to increase bystander CPR and quality of out-of-hospital resuscitation on outcome from OHCA. The post-intervention data were used to determine the next quality improvement (QI) target as part of the “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) model for QI.Hypothesis:The study hypothesis was that bystander CPR, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to discharge after OHCA would increase in the post-intervention period.Methods:This was a retrospective pre/post study. The data from the pre-intervention period were abstracted from 2008–2011 and the post-intervention period from 2012–2013. The effect of the intervention on the odds of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge was determined using a generalized estimating equation to account for confounders and the effect of clustering within medical centers. The analysis was then used to identify other factors associated with outcomes to determine the next targets for intervention in the chain of survival for cardiac arrest in this community.Results:Rates of documented bystander CPR increased from 13% in the pre-intervention period to 37% in the post-intervention period. The overall rate of ROSC decreased from 18.4% to 14.3% (risk difference −4.1%; 95% CI, −7.1%–1.0%), whereas survival to hospital discharge increased from 3.9% to 5.0% (risk difference 1.1%; 95% CI, −1.8%–3.8%), and survival with good neurologic outcome increased from 0.8% to 1.6% (risk difference 0.8%; 95% CI, −0.8%–2.4%). In multivariable analyses, there was no association between the intervention and the rate of ROSC or survival to hospital discharge. The designated level of the treating hospital was a significant predictor of both survival and ROSC.Conclusion:In this case study, there were no observed improvements in outcomes from OHCA after the targeted intervention to improve out-of-hospital CPR. However, utilizing the PDSA model for QI, the designated level of the treating hospital was found to be a significant predictor of survival in the post-period, identifying the next target for intervention.

BACKGROUND Delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantation is a common occurrence and correlates with poor graft and patient outcomes. Donor characteristics and care are known to impact DGF. We attempted to show the relationship between achievement of specific donor management goals (DMG) and DGF. METHODS This is a retrospective case-control study using data from 14 046 adult kidney donations after brain death from hospitals in 18 organ procurement organizations (OPOs) which were transplanted to adult recipients between 2012 and 2018. Data on DMG compliance and donor, recipient, and ischemia-related factors were used to create multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS The overall rate of DGF was 29.4%. Meeting DMGs for urine output and vasopressor use were associated with decreased risk of DGF. Sensitivity analyses performed with different imputation methods, omitting recipient factors, and analyzing multiple time points yielded largely consistent results. CONCLUSIONS The development of DMGs continues to show promise in improving outcomes in the kidney transplant recipient population. Studies have already shown increased kidney utilization in smaller cohorts, as well as other organs, and shown decreased rates of DGF. Additional research and analysis are required to assess interactions between meeting DMGs and correlation versus causality in DMGs and DGF.

All academic medical specialties have the obligation to continuously create new knowledge that will improve patient care and outcomes. Emergency medicine (EM) is no exception. Since its origins over 50 years ago, EM has struggled to fulfill its research mission. EM ranks last among clinical specialties in the percentage of medical school faculty who are National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded principal investigators (PIs; 1.7%) and the percentage of medical school departments with NIH-funded PIs (33%). Although there has been a steady increase in the number of NIH-funded projects and total NIH dollars, the slowing growth in the number of NIH-funded PIs and lack of growth in the number of EM departments with NIH-funded PIs is cause for concern. In response, the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine (AACEM) Research Task Force proposes a set of 2030 strategic goals for the EM research enterprise that are based on sustaining historic growth rates in NIH funding. These goals have been endorsed by the AACEM Executive Committee and the boards of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM). The 2030 strategic goals include 200 NIH-funded projects led by 150 EM PIs in at least 50 EM departments with over $100M in annual funding resulting in over 3% of EM faculty being NIH-funded PIs. Achieving these goals will require a targeted series of focused strategies to increase the number of EM faculty who are competitive for NIH funding. This requires a coordinated, intentional effort with investments at the national, departmental, and individual levels. These efforts are ideally led by medical school department chairs, who can create the culture and provide the resources needed to be successful. The specialty of EM has the obligation to improve the health of the public and to fulfill its research mission.

ImportanceBayesian adaptive trial design has the potential to create more efficient clinical trials. However, one of the barriers to the uptake of Bayesian adaptive designs for confirmatory trials is limited experience with how they may perform compared to a frequentist design.ObjectiveCompare the performance of a Bayesian and a frequentist adaptive clinical trial design.DesignProspective observational study comparing two trial designs using individual patient level data from a completed stroke trial, including the timing and order of enrollments and outcome ascertainment. The implemented frequentist design had group sequential boundaries for efficacy and futility interim analyses when 90-days post-randomization was met for 500, 700, 900, and 1,100 patients. The Bayesian alternative utilized predictive probability of trial success to govern early termination for efficacy and futility with a first interim analysis at 500 randomized patients, and subsequent interims after every 100 randomizations.SettingMulti-center, acute stroke study conducted within a National Institutes of Health neurological emergencies clinical trials network.ParticipantsPatient level data from 1,151 patients randomized in a clinical trial comparing intensive insulin therapy to standard in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)Sample size at end of study. This was defined as the sample size at which each of the studies stopped accrual of patients.ResultsAs conducted, the frequentist design passed the futility boundary after 936 participants were randomized. Using the same sequence and timing of randomization and outcome data, the Bayesian alternative crossed the futility boundary about 3 months earlier after 800 participants were randomized.Conclusions and RelevanceBoth trial designs stopped for futility prior to reaching the planned maximum sample size. In both cases, the clinical community and patients would benefit from learning the answer to the trial’s primary question earlier. The common feature across the two designs was frequent interim analyses to stop early for efficacy or for futility. Differences between how this was implemented between the two trials resulted in the differences in early stopping.Trial RegistrationThe SHINE trial was registered and results are reported on clinicaltrials.gov under identifier: NCT01369069

BackgroundThrombo-inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality in Covid-19. We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in non-critically ill patients hospitalized for Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label adaptive multiplatform randomized controlled trial, non-critically ill patients hospitalized for Covid-19, defined by the absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment, were randomized to a pragmatic strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome combined survival to hospital discharge and days free of organ support through 21 days, which was evaluated with Bayesian statistical models according to baseline D-dimer.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for superiority were met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in groups defined by high (≥2-fold elevated) and low (ConclusionsIn non-critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increases the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of organ support.Trial registration numbers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589

Bayesian adaptive trial design has the potential to create more efficient clinical trials. However, a barrier to the uptake of bayesian adaptive designs for confirmatory trials is limited experience with how they may perform compared with a frequentist design.To compare the performance of a bayesian and a frequentist adaptive clinical trial design.This prospective cohort study compared 2 trial designs for a completed multicenter acute stroke trial conducted within a National Institutes of Health neurologic emergencies clinical trials network, with individual patient-level data, including the timing and order of enrollments and outcome ascertainment, from 1151 patients with acute stroke and hyperglycemia randomized to receive intensive or standard insulin therapy. The implemented frequentist design had group sequential boundaries for efficacy and futility interim analyses at 90 days after randomization for 500, 700, 900, and 1100 patients. The bayesian alternative used predictive probability of trial success to govern early termination for efficacy and futility with a first interim analysis at 500 randomized patients and subsequent interims after every 100 randomizations.The main outcome was the sample size at end of study, which was defined as the sample size at which each of the studies stopped accrual of patients.Data were collected from 1151 patients. As conducted, the frequentist design passed the futility boundary after 936 participants were randomized. Using the same sequence and timing of randomization and outcome data, the bayesian alternative crossed the futility boundary approximately 3 months earlier after 800 participants were randomized.Both trial designs stopped for futility before reaching the planned maximum sample size. In both cases, the clinical community and patients would benefit from learning the answer to the trial's primary question earlier. The common feature across the 2 designs was frequent interim analyses to stop early for efficacy or for futility. Differences between how these analyses were implemented between the 2 trials resulted in the differences in early stopping.

BackgroundThrombosis may contribute to morbidity and mortality in Covid-19. We hypothesized that therapeutic anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized, clinical trial. Patients with severe Covid-19, defined as the requirement for organ support with high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation, invasive ventilation, vasopressors, or inotropes, were randomized to receive therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis as per local usual care. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned –1) and days free of organ support to day 21.ResultsTherapeutic anticoagulation met the pre-defined criteria for futility in patients with severe Covid-19. The primary outcome was available for 1,074 participants (529 randomized to therapeutic anticoagulation and 545 randomized to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis). Median organ support-free days were 3 days (interquartile range –1, 16) in patients assigned to therapeutic anticoagulation and 5 days (interquartile range –1, 16) in patients assigned to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.70-1.08, posterior probability of futility [odds ratioConclusionsIn patients with severe Covid-19, therapeutic anticoagulation did not improve hospital survival or days free of organ support compared to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.Trial registration numbers NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589

Importance Sepsis is a common syndrome with substantial morbidity and mortality. A combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and corticosteroids has been proposed as a potential treatment for patients with sepsis. Objective To determine whether a combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone every 6 hours increases ventilator- and vasopressor-free days compared with placebo in patients with sepsis. Design, setting, and participants Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, adaptive-sample-size, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adult patients with sepsis-induced respiratory and/or cardiovascular dysfunction. Participants were enrolled in the emergency departments or intensive care units at 43 hospitals in the United States between August 2018 and July 2019. After enrollment of 501 participants, funding was withheld, leading to an administrative termination of the trial. All study-related follow-up was completed by January 2020. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g), thiamine (100 mg), and hydrocortisone (50 mg) every 6 hours (n = 252) or matching placebo (n = 249) for 96 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death. Participants could be treated with open-label corticosteroids by the clinical team, with study hydrocortisone or matching placebo withheld if the total daily dose was greater or equal to the equivalent of 200 mg of hydrocortisone. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was the number of consecutive ventilator- and vasopressor-free days in the first 30 days following the day of randomization. The key secondary outcome was 30-day mortality. Results Among 501 participants randomized (median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 50-70] years; 46% female; 30% Black; median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, 27 [IQR, 20.8-33.0]; median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 9 [IQR, 7-12]), all completed the trial. Open-label corticosteroids were prescribed to 33% and 32% of the intervention and control groups, respectively. Ventilator- and vasopressor-free days were a median of 25 days (IQR, 0-29 days) in the intervention group and 26 days (IQR, 0-28 days) in the placebo group, with a median difference of -1 day (95% CI, -4 to 2 days; P = .85). Thirty-day mortality was 22% in the intervention group and 24% in the placebo group. Conclusions and relevance Among critically ill patients with sepsis, treatment with vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly increase ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days. However, the trial was terminated early for administrative reasons and may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509350.

Introduction: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is promising but unproven. We developed a concept for a randomized Bayesian adaptive clinical trial to define the interval after arrest during which patients derive benefit. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that the simulated design characteristics of the adaptive design would efficiently confirm or refute the existence of a therapeutic window for ECPR in a future trial. Methods: Through iterative simulation and design modification, we developed a Bayesian adaptive trial of ECPR for adults with OHCA. The goals of the trial design were to address the uncertainty surrounding the OHCA-to-ECPR interval within which clinical benefit might be preserved and the difference in prognosis between patients with non-shockable vs shockable rhythms. The treatment effect was defined as the mean 90-day utility-weighted Modified Rankin Scale (uwmRS) for each rhythm subgroup and estimated CA-to-ECPR interval. The trial adaptively lengthens or contracts the estimated CA-to-ECPR eligibility window depending on the probability of benefit from ECPR. We simulated trial performance under six potential ECPR efficacy scenarios. We compared the adaptive design to a fixed design. Results: The trial had 91-100% power to detect a benefit from ECPR for non-shockable rhythms and 69-98% power for shockable rhythms under the scenarios simulated (figure). The design had a high probability of identifying the maximum CA-to-ECPR interval within which ECPR produces a clinically significant benefit of 0.2 on the uwMRS. In null scenarios, the 97-99% of the simulated trials ended early declaring futility. Conclusions: The adaptive trial design helps to ensure the patient population most likely to benefit from treatment—as defined by rhythm subgroup and estimated CA-to-ECPR interval—are enrolled. The design also promotes early termination of the trial if continuation is likely to be futile.

BACKGROUND Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a promising therapy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) that is refractory to standard therapy, but no multicenter randomized clinical trials have been conducted to establish its efficacy. We report the design and operating characteristics of a proposed randomized Bayesian adaptive “enrichment” clinical trial designed to determine whether ECPR is effective for refractory OHCA and, if effective, to define the interval after arrest during which patients derive benefit. METHODS Through iterative trial simulation and trial design modification, we developed a Bayesian adaptive trial of ECPR for adults who experience non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Our proposed trial design addresses the threats to trial success identified during the design process, which were (1) the uncertainty surrounding the cardiac arrest (CA)-to-ECPR interval within which clinical benefit might be preserved (2) the difference in prognosis between patients with an initial rhythm that is non-shockable vs. shockable. Trial subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive either standard care or expedited transport to a hospital for potential ECPR. The CA-to-ECPR interval will be estimated in real time based on the sum of the estimated paramedic response time (911 call to scene arrival), paramedic scene time, and transport time to hospital. A Bayesian decreasing step function will be used to estimate the efficacy of the treatment with an outcome of the 90-day utility-weighted Modified Rankin Scale (uwmRS) for each rhythm subgroup and estimated CA-to-ECPR interval at pre-specified interims. The trial will adaptively lengthen the estimated CA-to-ECPR eligibility window if the treatment appears effective at the upper limit of initial eligibility window. If ECPR appears ineffective at longer estimated CA-to-ECPR intervals, the upper limit of the window for enrollment eligibility will be shortened. The analysis will be stratified by rhythm subgroup. RESULTS With a maximum total sample size of 400, and a cap on the maximum sample size of 300 for the non-shockable rhythm subgroup, the trial design has power ranging from 91–100% to detect a benefit from ECPR for non-shockable rhythms under the various efficacy scenarios simulated and power ranging from 69–98% for shockable rhythms under the same scenarios. The trial design also has a high probability of correctly identifying the maximum CA-to-ECPR interval within which ECPR produces a clinically significant benefit of 0.2 on the uwMRS. If ECPR is equivalent to standard CA care, the type I error is 2.5% with a 99% probability of stopping enrollment early for futility in the non-shockable subgroup and a 97% probability of stopping enrollment early for futility in the shockable subgroup. CONCLUSION This proposed adaptive trial design helps to ensure the population of patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment—as defined both by rhythm subgroup and estimated CA-to-ECPR interval—is enrolled. The design promotes early termination of the trial if continuation is likely to be futile.

Objective:The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in the perception of disaster issues between disaster directors and general health care providers in Gyeonggi Province, South Korea.Methods:The Gyeonggi provincial committee distributed a survey to acute care facility personnel. Survey topics included awareness of general disaster issues, hospital preparedness, and training priorities. The questionnaire comprised multiple choices and items scored on a 10-point Likert scale. We analyzed the discrepancies and characteristics of the responses.Results:Completed surveys were returned from 43 (67%) of 64 directors and 145 (55.6%) of 261 health care providers. In the field of general awareness, the topic of how to triage in disaster response showed the greatest discrepancies. In the domain of hospital level disaster preparedness, individual opinions varied most within the topics of incident command, manual preparation. The responses to “accept additional patients in disaster situation” showed the biggest differences (> 21 versus 6~10).Conclusions:In this study, there were disaster topics with discrepancies and concordances in perception between disaster directors and general health care providers. The analysis would present baseline information for the development of better training programs for region-specific core competencies, knowledge, and skills required for the effective response.

Background Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups. Methods We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921. Findings Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20–1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74–1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30–1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00–5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group. Interpretation Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2–3 days sooner. Funding European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

BACKGROUND The effect of endovascular thrombectomy that is performed more than 6 hours after the onset of ischemic stroke is uncertain. Patients with a clinical deficit that is disproportionately severe relative to the infarct volume may benefit from late thrombectomy. METHODS We enrolled patients with occlusion of the intracranial internal carotid artery or proximal middle cerebral artery who had last been known to be well 6 to 24 hours earlier and who had a mismatch between the severity of the clinical deficit and the infarct volume, with mismatch criteria defined according to age (= 80 years). Patients were randomly assigned to thrombectomy plus standard care (the thrombectomy group) or to standard care alone (the control group). The coprimary end points were the mean score for disability on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale (which ranges from 0 [death] to 10 [no symptoms or disability]) and the rate of functional independence (a score of 0, 1, or 2 on the modified Rankin scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) at 90 days. RESULTS A total of 206 patients were enrolled; 107 were assigned to the thrombectomy group and 99 to the control group. At 31 months, enrollment in the trial was stopped because of the results of a prespecified interim analysis. The mean score on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 5.5 in the thrombectomy group as compared with 3.4 in the control group (adjusted difference [Bayesian analysis], 2.0 points; 95% credible interval, 1.1 to 3.0; posterior probability of superiority, >0.999), and the rate of functional independence at 90 days was 49% in the thrombectomy group as compared with 13% in the control group (adjusted difference, 33 percentage points; 95% credible interval, 24 to 44; posterior probability of superiority, >0.999). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two groups (6% in the thrombectomy group and 3% in the control group, P = 0.50), nor did 90-day mortality (19% and 18%, respectively; P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with acute stroke who had last been known to be well 6 to 24 hours earlier and who had a mismatch between clinical deficit and infarct, outcomes for disability at 90 days were better with thrombectomy plus standard care than with standard care alone. (Funded by Stryker Neurovascular; DAWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02142283.)

Septic shock carries substantial morbidity and mortality. The failure of many promising therapies during late-phase clinical trials prompted calls for alternative trial designs. We describe an innovative trial evaluating selepressin, a novel selective vasopressin V1a receptor agonist, for adults with septic shock. SEPSIS-ACT (Selepressin Evaluation Programme for Sepsis-induced Shock—Adaptive Clinical Trial) is a blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-part, adaptive phase 2b/3 trial, evaluating up to four selepressin dosing strategies. The primary outcome is pressor- and ventilator-free days, with a value of zero assigned for death within 30 days. We calculate Bayesian probabilities of final trial success to guide interim decision-making. Part 1 (dose-finding) has an adaptive sample size based on response-adaptive randomization and prespecified rules to determine stopping for futility or selection of the best dosing regimen for Part 2. Part 2 (confirmation) randomizes a minimum of 1,000 patients equa...

Purpose: To determine the incidence of post-concussion syndrome (PCS) in Korean patients after minor traumatic brain injury. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of a convenience sample of patients presenting to the emergency department of a major academic Korean hospital. Patients who visited the Emergency Department for head trauma were screened. A researcher questioned the subject regarding his or her symptoms. Subjects were contacted by phone approximately 2 weeks after their Emergency Department visit and questioned about subsequent symptoms and subsequent visits for medical care. Results: Only 8% of subjects reported any post-concussion symptoms. Only 0.4% had three or more symptoms which might have met criteria for PCS. The median peak onset of symptoms was 3 days after injury. Conclusion: The incidence of PCS is Korean patients is much lower than that documented for patients in the United States or other western countries. On the other hand, this study results could give an idea that mild trauma could also cause the PCS. Further study is needed to replicate this finding and investigate possible explanations for this difference. [ J Trauma Inj 2017; 30: 41-46 ]

Rationale Efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy for acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion initiated beyond 6 h of time last seen well has not been demonstrated in randomized trials. Aim To establish whether subjects considered to have substantial areas of salvageable brain based on age-adjusted clinical core mismatch who can undergo endovascular treatment within 6–24 h from time last seen well (TLSW) have better outcomes at three months compared to subjects treated with standard medical therapy alone. Age-adjusted clinical core mismatch is defined by age (≤80 or >80 years), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (10–20 or ≥21), and core size (0–20 cm3 in subjects older than 80 and, in subjects younger than 80, 0–30 cm3 with NIHSS 10–20 and 31–50 cm3 with NIHSS ≥21). Design Prospective, randomized, multicenter, Bayesian adaptive-enrichment, open label trial with blinded endpoint assessment. For the purpose of enrolment, ischemic core size will be evaluated by CT perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging-diffusion-weighted imaging measured by automated software (RAPID). Procedures Subjects with acute ischemic stroke due to computed tomography angiography- or magnetic resonance angiogram-proven arterial occlusion of the intracranial internal carotid and/or proximal middle cerebral artery (M1) with age-adjusted clinical core mismatch in whom treatment can be initiated between 6 and 24 h from TSLW are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive mechanical embolectomy with the Trevo device or medical management alone. Sequential interim analyses allowing adaptation of enrolment criteria or stopping new enrolment for futility or predicted success will occur in every 50 randomized patients starting at 150 to a maximum of 500 patients. Study outcomes The primary endpoint is the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days. The primary safety outcome is stroke-related mortality at 90 days. Analysis The primary endpoint, expressed as a utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale score is analyzed using a Bayesian posterior probability with adjustment for ischemic core size. For regulatory reasons, a nested co-primary endpoint analysis was added consisting of the proportion of subjects with modified Rankin Scale 0–2 between the active and control groups also analyzed using a Bayesian model.

Background/aims Use of data monitoring committees to oversee clinical trials was first proposed nearly 50 years ago. Since then, data monitoring committee use in clinical trials has increased and evolved. Nonetheless, there are no well-defined criteria for determining the need for a data monitoring committee, and considerable variability exists in data monitoring committee composition and conduct. To understand and describe the role and function of data monitoring committees, and establish best practices for data monitoring committee trial oversight, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative—a public–private partnership to improve clinical trials—launched a multi-stakeholder project. Methods The data monitoring committee project team included 16 individuals charged with (1) clarifying the purpose of data monitoring committees, (2) identifying best practices for independent data monitoring committee conduct, (3) describing effective communication practices, and (4) developing strategies for training data monitoring committee members. Evidence gathering included a survey, a series of focus group discussions, and a 2-day expert meeting aimed at achieving consensus opinions that form the foundation of our data monitoring committee recommendations. Results We define the role of the data monitoring committee as an advisor to the research sponsor on whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial based on periodic assessment of trial data. Data monitoring committees should remain independent from the sponsor and be composed of members with no relevant conflicts of interest. Representation on a data monitoring committee generally should include at least one clinician with expertise in the therapeutic area being studied, a biostatistician, and a designated chairperson who has experience with clinical trials and data monitoring. Data monitoring committee meetings are held periodically to evaluate the unmasked data from ongoing trials, but the content and conduct of meetings may vary depending on specific goals or topics for deliberation. To guide data monitoring committee conduct and communication plans, a charter consistent with the protocol’s research design and statistical analysis plan should be developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the data monitoring committee prior to patient enrollment. We recommend concise and flexible charters that explain roles, responsibilities, operational issues, and how data monitoring committee recommendations are generated and communicated. The demand for data monitoring committee members appears to exceed the current pool of qualified individuals. To prepare a new generation of trained data monitoring committee members, we encourage a combination of didactic educational programs, practical experience, and skill development through apprenticeships and mentoring by experienced data monitoring committee members. Conclusion Our recommendations address data monitoring committee use, conduct, communication practices, and member preparation and training. Furthermore recommendations form the foundation for ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial oversight and enhance the safety and integrity of clinical research. These recommendations serve as a call to action for implementation of best practices that benefit study participants, study sponsors, and society.

Background: Adaptive clinical trials use accumulating data from enrolled subjects to alter trial conduct in pre-specified ways based on quantitative decision rules. In this research, we sought to characterize the perspectives of key stakeholders during the development process of confirmatory-phase adaptive clinical trials within an emergency clinical trials network and to build a model to guide future development of adaptive clinical trials. Methods: We used an ethnographic, qualitative approach to evaluate key stakeholders’ views about the adaptive clinical trial development process. Stakeholders participated in a series of multidisciplinary meetings during the development of five adaptive clinical trials and completed a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats questionnaire. In the analysis, we elucidated overarching themes across the stakeholders’ responses to develop a conceptual model. Results: Four major overarching themes emerged during the analysis of stakeholders’ responses to questioning: the perceived statistical complexity of adaptive clinical trials and the roles of collaboration, communication, and time during the development process. Frequent and open communication and collaboration were viewed by stakeholders as critical during the development process, as were the careful management of time and logistical issues related to the complexity of planning adaptive clinical trials. Conclusion: The Adaptive Design Development Model illustrates how statistical complexity, time, communication, and collaboration are moderating factors in the adaptive design development process. The intensity and iterative nature of this process underscores the need for funding mechanisms for the development of novel trial proposals in academic settings.

In a recent trial, targeted mild hypothermia in brain-dead organ donors significantly reduced the incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplantation. This trial was stopped early for efficacy. Here, we report long-term graft survival for all organs along with donor critical care end points.We assessed graft survival through 1 year of all solid organs transplanted from 370 donors who had been randomly assigned to hypothermia (34-35°C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5°C) before donation. Additionally, changes in standardized critical care end points were compared between donors in each group.Mild hypothermia was associated with a nonsignificant improvement in 1-year kidney transplant survival (95% versus 92%; hazard ratio, 0.61 [0.31-1.20]; P = 0.15). Mild hypothermia was associated with higher 1-year graft survival in the subgroup of standard criteria donors (97% versus 93%; hazard ratio, 0.39 [0.15 to -1.00]; P = 0.05). There were no significant differences in graft survival of extrarenal organs. There were no differences in critical care end points between groups.Mild hypothermia in the donor safely reduced the rate of delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients without adversely affecting donor physiology or extrarenal graft survival. Kidneys from standard criteria donors who received targeted mild hypothermia had improved 1-year graft survival.

Delayed graft function (DGF) in kidney transplant significantly increases inpatient and outpatient cost. Targeted, mild hypothermia in organ donors after neurologic determination of death significantly reduced the rate of DGF in a recent randomized controlled clinical trial. To assess the potential economic benefit of national implementation of donor hypothermia, rates of reduction DGF were combined with estimates of the impact of DGF on hospital cost and total health expenditure for standard and extended criteria donor organs (SCD and ECD). DGF increases the cost of the transplant episode by $9487 for ECD transplant and $10 342 for SCD transplant. Medicare recipients with DGF incur an additional $18 513 spending for ECD and $14 948 in SCD transplants over the first year. An absolute reduction in DGF rate after kidney transplantation consistent with trial results (ECD 25%, SCD 7%) has the potential to lower annual hospital cost for kidney transplant by $13 178 746 and annual Medicare spending by $20 970 706 compared to standard donor management practice using static cold storage. Targeted mild hypothermia improves care of renal transplant patients by safely reducing DGF rates in both ECD and SCD transplant. Broader application of this safe, effective, and low-cost intervention could reduce healthcare expenditures for providers and insurers.