Randomized Trial of Metformin, Ivermectin, and Fluvoxamine for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Early treatment to prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an important component of the comprehensive response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we used a 2-by-3 factorial design to test the effectiveness of three repurposed drugs - metformin, ivermectin, and fluvoxamine - in preventing serious SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalized adults who had been enrolled within 3 days after a confirmed diagnosis of infection and less than 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The patients were between the ages of 30 and 85 years, and all had either overweight or obesity. The primary composite end point was hypoxemia (≤93% oxygen saturation on home oximetry), emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death. All analyses used controls who had undergone concurrent randomization and were adjusted for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and receipt of other trial medications. RESULTS: A total of 1431 patients underwent randomization; of these patients, 1323 were included in the primary analysis. The median age of the patients was 46 years; 56% were female (6% of whom were pregnant), and 52% had been vaccinated. The adjusted odds ratio for a primary event was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.09; P = 0.19) with metformin, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.45; P = 0.78) with ivermectin, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.36; P = 0.75) with fluvoxamine. In prespecified secondary analyses, the adjusted odds ratio for emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94) with metformin, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.69) with ivermectin, and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.57 to 2.40) with fluvoxamine. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization or death was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.11) with metformin, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.19 to 2.77) with ivermectin, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.33 to 3.76) with fluvoxamine. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three medications that were evaluated prevented the occurrence of hypoxemia, an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or death associated with Covid-19. (Funded by the Parsemus Foundation and others; COVID-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04510194.).

Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009.

A multi-center phase II randomized clinical trial of losartan on symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), disrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis, potentially contributing to lung injury. Treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), such as losartan, may mitigate these effects, though induction of ACE2 could increase viral entry, replication, and worsen disease. METHODS: This study represents a placebo-controlled blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of losartan on outpatients with COVID-19 across three hospital systems with numerous community sites in Minnesota, U.S. Participants included symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 not already taking ACE-inhibitors or ARBs, enrolled within 7 days of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to 1:1 losartan (25 mg orally twice daily unless estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR, was reduced, when dosing was reduced to once daily) versus placebo for 10 days, and all patients and outcome assesors were blinded. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 15 days. Secondary outcomes included functional status, dyspnea, temperature, and viral load. (clinicatrials.gov, NCT04311177, closed to new participants). FINDINGS: From April to November 2020, 117 participants were randomized 58 to losartan and 59 to placebo, and all were analyzed under intent to treat principles. The primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two arms based on Barnard's test [losartan arm: 3 events (5.2% 95% CI 1.1, 14.4%) versus placebo arm: 1 event (1.7%; 95% CI 0.0, 9.1%)]; proportion difference -3.5% (95% CI -13.2, 4.8%); p = 0.32]. Viral loads were not statistically different between treatment groups at any time point. Adverse events per 10 patient days did not differ signifcantly [0.33 (95% CI 0.22-0.49) for losartan vs. 0.37 (95% CI 0.25-0.55) for placebo]. Due to a lower than expected hospitalization rate and low likelihood of a clinically important treatment effect, the trial was terminated early. INTERPRETATION: In this multicenter blinded RCT for outpatients with mild symptomatic COVID-19 disease, losartan did not reduce hospitalizations, though assessment was limited by low event rate. Importantly, viral load was not statistically affected by treatment. This study does not support initiation of losartan for low-risk outpatients.

Emergency medicine in Japan: past, present, and future.

Quite a few changes and challenges have arisen in society in general as technology has advanced and the aging population has increased. These can lead to the recognition of the shortcomings of a society's traditional systems and the various changes that are needed, especially in providing emergency medical care. A super-aged society has been developing in Japan, and the emergency care system needs to change according to these new demographics and society's needs. The focus has been shifting from critical care and trauma to medical and surgical conditions involving the elderly. Challenges in triage, ambulance diversion, and staffing are discussed in this review. Possible solutions currently underway, such as a public helpline, smartphone app system, coordination by designated hospitals, and universal coverage/government support, are discussed as future directions. Emergency medicine in Japan needs to develop in a more flexible way to meet the upcoming robust challenges of the changing demographics.

Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The optimal agent to treat acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) has not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol, ziprasidone, and lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind trial of ED patients with acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation. The study was conducted under exception from informed consent (21 CFR 50.24) from July 2004 to March 2005. Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of ziprasidone, 20 mg of ziprasidone, or 2 mg of lorazepam intramuscularly. We recorded Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS) scores, nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2 ), and pulse oximetry (SpO2 ) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes as well as QTc durations and dysrhythmias. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO2 consistent with respiratory depression or SpO2  < 90%. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated (AMSS ≤ 0) at 15 minutes. RESULTS: We enrolled 115 patients. Baseline AMSS scores were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, adequate sedation at 15 minutes, droperidol administration was effective in 16 of 25 (64%) patients, compared to seven of 28 (25%) for 10 mg of ziprasidone, 11 of 31 (35%) for 20 mg of ziprasidone, and nine of 31 (29%) for lorazepam. Pairwise comparisons revealed that droperidol was more effective that the other medications, with 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3% to 54%) more compared to 20 mg of ziprasidone and 33% (95% CI = 8% to 58%) more compared to lorazepam. There was no significant difference between groups in need of additional rescue sedation. Numerically, respiratory depression was lower with droperidol (3/25 [12%]) compared to 10 mg of ziprasidone (10/28 [36%]), 20 mg of ziprasidone (12/31 [39%]), or lorazepam (15/31 [48%]). One patient receiving 20 mg of ziprasidone required intubation to manage an acute subdural hematoma. No patients had ventricular dysrhythmias. QTc durations were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol was more effective than lorazepam or either dose of ziprasidone for the treatment of acute agitation in the ED and caused fewer episodes of respiratory depression.

Advanced reperfusion strategies for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and refractory ventricular fibrillation (ARREST): a phase 2, single centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and ventricular fibrillation, more than half present with refractory ventricular fibrillation unresponsive to initial standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) treatment. We did the first randomised clinical trial in the USA of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-facilitated resuscitation versus standard ACLS treatment in patients with OHCA and refractory ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: For this phase 2, single centre, open-label, adaptive, safety and efficacy randomised clinical trial, we included adults aged 18-75 years presenting to the University of Minnesota Medical Center (MN, USA) with OHCA and refractory ventricular fibrillation, no return of spontaneous circulation after three shocks, automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a Lund University Cardiac Arrest System, and estimated transfer time shorter than 30 min. Patients were randomly assigned to early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation or standard ACLS treatment on hospital arrival by use of a secure schedule generated with permuted blocks of randomly varying block sizes. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a randomisation schedule that required scratching off an opaque layer to reveal assignment. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were safety, survival, and functional assessment at hospital discharge and at 3 months and 6 months after discharge. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The study qualified for exception from informed consent (21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24). The ARREST trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03880565. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2019, and June 14, 2020, 36 patients were assessed for inclusion. After exclusion of six patients, 30 were randomly assigned to standard ACLS treatment (n=15) or to early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation (n=15). One patient in the ECMO-facilitated resuscitation group withdrew from the study before discharge. The mean age was 59 years (range 36-73), and 25 (83%) of 30 patients were men. Survival to hospital discharge was observed in one (7%) of 15 patients (95% credible interval 1·6-30·2) in the standard ACLS treatment group versus six (43%) of 14 patients (21·3-67·7) in the early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation group (risk difference 36·2%, 3·7-59·2; posterior probability of ECMO superiority 0·9861). The study was terminated at the first preplanned interim analysis by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute after unanimous recommendation from the Data Safety Monitoring Board after enrolling 30 patients because the posterior probability of ECMO superiority exceeded the prespecified monitoring boundary. Cumulative 6-month survival was significantly better in the early ECMO group than in the standard ACLS group. No unanticipated serious adverse events were observed. INTERPRETATION: Early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation for patients with OHCA and refractory ventricular fibrillation significantly improved survival to hospital discharge compared with standard ACLS treatment. FUNDING: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The Incidence of QT Prolongation and Torsades des Pointes in Patients Receiving Droperidol in an Urban Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Droperidol carries a boxed warning from the United States Food and Drug Administration for QT prolongation and torsades des pointes (TdP). After a six-year hiatus, droperidol again became widely available in the US in early 2019. With its return, clinicians must again make decisions regarding the boxed warning. Thus, the objective of this study was to report the incidence of QT prolongation or TdP in patients receiving droperidol in the ED. METHODS: Patients receiving droperidol at an urban Level I trauma center from 1997-2001 were identified via electronic health record query. All patients were reviewed for cardiac arrest. We reviewed electrocardiogram (ECG) data for both critically-ill and noncritical patients and recorded Bazett's corrected QT intervals (QTc). ECGs from critically-ill patients undergoing resuscitation were further risk-stratified using the QT nomogram. RESULTS: Of noncritical patients, 15,374 received 18,020 doses of droperidol; 2,431 had an ECG. In patients with ECGs before and after droperidol, the mean QTc was 424.3 milliseconds (ms) (95% confidence interval [CI], 419.7-428.9) before and 427.6 ms (95% CI, 424.3-430.9), after droperidol (n = 170). Regarding critically-ill patients, 1,172 received droperidol and 396 had an ECG. In the critically-ill group with ECGs before and after droperidol mean QTc was 435.7 ms (95% CI, 426.7-444.7) before and 435.8 ms (95% CI, 427.5-444.1) after droperidol (n = 114). Of 337 ECGs suitable for plotting on the QT nomogram, 13 (3.8%) were above the "at-risk" line; 3/136 (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.05-6.3%) in the before group, and 10/202 (4.9%; 95% CI, 2.4%-8.9%) in the after group. A single case of TdP occurred in a patient with multiple risk factors that did not reoccur after a droperidol rechallenge. Thus, the incidence of TdP was 1/16,546 (0.006%; 95% CI, 0.00015 - 0.03367%). CONCLUSION: We found the incidence of QTc prolongation and TdP in ED patients receiving droperidol to be extremely rare. Our data suggest the FDA "black box warning" is overstated, and that close ECG monitoring is useful only in high-risk patients.

Patient and Surrogate Postenrollment Perspectives on Research Using the Exception From Informed Consent: An Integrated Survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: It is important for researchers interested in trials using the exception from informed consent to understand the views and experiences of enrolled individuals. Previous studies have shown that patient and surrogate attitudes are generally positive. These studies were small and did not include pediatric patients, and interviews were often conducted long after trial enrollment. This study sought to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent in a larger sample and more contemporaneous setting. METHODS: A 10-item paper-and-pencil survey was integrated into the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial, a randomized trial of 3 treatments for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in pediatric and adult patients. Primary domains included attitudes toward trial enrollment, exception from informed consent, and community consultation. Simple descriptive statistics, χ2, and Fisher's exact tests were conducted. RESULTS: Of 317 patients and surrogates, 90% agreed with or were neutral about the statement "I am glad that I/my family member was included in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial research study," whereas 10% disagreed. Twenty-seven percent disagreed with enrollment in the study without prospective consent. Black participants were more likely than white, other race, and unknown-race participants to disagree with enrollment without prospective consent (36% versus 23%, 14%, and 14%, respectively). Participants indicated that patients (81%), their families (65%), and those at risk for seizures (51%) were most important to include in community consultation. CONCLUSION: This study aimed to explore attitudes toward exception from informed consent enrollment among participants at all sites in a large, multicenter exception from informed consent trial. General acceptance of trial enrollment was high; acceptance of exception from informed consent specifically was somewhat lower, especially among black participants. Our findings provide further support for targeted community consultation focusing on individuals with connections to the disease under study. Future research should focus on communication in the postenrollment period, especially with individuals who may have concerns about exception from informed consent.

Identifying Clinical Research Priorities in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care. NHLBI Working Group Report.

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the NHLBI. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising preclinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data," causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, preclinical disease modeling, and understanding of recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state of, research priorities for, and future directions in adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including 1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; 2) optimizing preclinical models by incorporating comorbidities, cointerventions, and organ support; 3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and 4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Disability After Minor Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack in the POINT Trial.

Background and Purpose- While combination aspirin and clopidogrel reduces recurrent stroke compared with aspirin alone in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke, the effect on disability is uncertain. Methods- The POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) randomized patients with TIA or minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤3) within 12 hours of onset to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone. The primary outcome measure was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. We performed a post hoc exploratory analysis to examine the effect of treatment on overall disability (defined as modified Rankin Scale score >1) at 90 days, as well as disability ascribed by the local investigator to index or recurrent stroke. We also evaluated predictors of disability. Results- At 90 days, 188 of 1964 (9.6%) of patients enrolled with TIA and 471 of 2586 (18.2%) of those enrolled with stroke were disabled. Overall disability was similar between patients assigned DAPT versus aspirin alone (14.7% versus 14.3%; odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.82-1.14]; P=0.69). However, there were numerically fewer patients with disability in conjunction with a primary outcome event in the DAPT arm (3.0% versus 4.0%; odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-1.01]; P=0.06) and significantly fewer patients in the DAPT arm with disability attributed by the investigators to either the index event or recurrent stroke (5.9% versus 7.4%; odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99]; P=0.04). Notably, disability attributed to the index event accounted for the majority of this difference (4.5% versus 6.0%; odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57-0.96]; P=0.02). In multivariate analysis, age, subsequent ischemic stroke, serious adverse events, and major bleeding were significantly associated with disability in TIA; for those with stroke, female sex, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, recurrent ischemic stroke, subsequent myocardial infarction, and serious adverse events were associated with disability. Conclusions- In addition to reducing recurrent stroke in patients with acute minor stroke and TIA, DAPT might reduce stroke-related disability. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

A 20-year Review: The Use of Exception From Informed Consent and Waiver of Informed Consent in Emergency Research.

BACKGROUND: Due to the acuity and time-sensitive needs of their clinical condition, patients presenting with certain emergent pathologies may lack capacity to provide meaningful prospective informed consent to participate in clinical research. For these reasons, these populations have often been excluded from research investigations. To mitigate this, regulations allowing exception from informed consent (EFIC; 21 CFR 50.24) or waiver of informed consent (WIC; 45 CFR 46.101) were developed in 1996. The purpose of this study was to identify trends in the utilization of EFIC and WIC in emergency research. We also sought to describe the disclosure of necessary prestudy regulatory requirements and justification for the use of EFIC/WIC as reported in completed EFIC/WIC clinical trials. METHODS: This study is a review of 20 years of published trials using EFIC or WIC as the primary method of patient consent. Studies were identified using a MEDLINE search; ClinicalTrials.gov; queries to emergency and resuscitation researchers, research directors, department chairs, and principal investigators of acute care research networks; clinical review papers; and a query of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) docket. All eligible studies were reviewed by three investigators and study data of interest were abstracted. Data are presented descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 45 potentially eligible studies; 11 were ongoing (with no data yet available), four were completed (with no publications or data available), and two did not use EFIC or WIC. Of the remaining 28 studies, 24 (86%) used EFIC and four used WIC. The most common pathologies under study were cardiac arrest (10), hemorrhagic shock (six), and traumatic brain injury (five). Completion of the prestudy regulatory requirements was reported as follows: FDA investigational new drug/investigational device exemption application (for FDA regulated studies; 14, 50%), community consultation (13, 46%), public disclosure (10, 36%), and opt-out procedures if requested by the institutional review board (seven, 25%). The justification of the need for the use of EFIC or WIC in the reported clinical trial, as defined as mention of at least one of the eight established criteria, was described in the text of 13 (46%) publications. CONCLUSIONS: Since their implementation in 1996, the EFIC/WIC regulations have allowed progress in research aimed at determining optimal care for devastating life-threatening conditions. However, consistent and rigorous report of regulatory prestudy requirements and justification of the use of EFIC/WIC is lacking in clinical trial publications or on websites such as ClinicalTrials.gov. Since research without consent is an ethically sensitive issue and not widely understood, better justification of its needs within the presentation of the research itself may educate the general medical community and also reduce concerns about whether or not the regulations are being properly applied.

A brief assessment of capacity to consent instrument in acutely intoxicated emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine to what extent acute alcohol intoxication effects capacity to assent, consent, or refuse research participation. METHODS: This was a prospective, observation study performed at our inner city, county hospital with >100,000 annual emergency department visits. Non-pregnant, English speaking patients older than 18 with evidence of acute alcohol intoxication were considered eligible. After medical screening, a trained research associate presented the study version of the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent (UBACC) tool. The primary outcome was the number of patients able to correctly respond to all 10 questions. RESULTS: Of 642 screened patients, 415 patients were enrolled and completed the tool. The mean alcohol concentration was 227mg/dL (range 25-500mg/dL). Sixteen patients (3.9%) answered all 10 questions correctly; by definition of the UBACC, these patients were deemed to possess capacity to consent. Mean alcohol concentrations in the capacity group were lower than in those lacking capacity; 182mg/dL (SD 6.7) versus 229mg/dL, (SD 7.9). Of the 287 patients who were interviewed upon sobriety at discharge, 182 patients (63.4%) did not recall completing the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: While intoxicated emergency department patients are able to complete the questionnaire, the majority do not possess capacity to provide informed consent to research. A minority of participants remember involvement once they have achieved sobriety, exception from informed consent protocols are needed to perform emergency research in this population.

Hyperglycemia in acute ischemic stroke: Is it time to re-evaluate our understanding?

Among 700,000 new and recurrent ischemic stroke patients per year, forty percent are hyperglycemic on admission. In-vitro, hyperglycemia is toxic to neurons. Acute ischemic stroke patients who are hyperglycemic on admission experience higher morbidity and mortality. Results of multiple trials have provided no evidence supporting benefit in achieving normoglycemia. On the contrary, there is some evidence that tight glycemic control in acute brain injury is associated with poor outcome. Current consensus derived guidelines from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association recommend an upper limit of blood glucose of 140-180mg/dl, as there is no evidence to support strict control. The lack of improved outcomes with normoglycemia in this population dictates reconsideration of assumptions regarding the underlying pathophysiology of hyperglycemia. Review of the current data suggests there are two distinct pathophysiologic entities of hyperglycemia in acute ischemic stroke patients: diabetic and non-diabetic. We propose that the lack of positive results from well-designed intention-to-treat trials in hyperglycemic acute ischemic stroke patients could be attributed to treating these distinct groups as one.

Impact of individual clinical outcomes on trial participants' perspectives on enrollment in emergency research without consent.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients are generally accepting of their enrollment in trials for emergency care conducted under exception from informed consent. It is unknown whether individuals with more severe initial injuries or worse clinical outcomes have different perspectives. Determining whether these differences exist may help to structure post-enrollment interactions. METHODS: Primary clinical data from the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were matched to interview data from the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study. Answers to three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study were analyzed in the context of enrolled patients' initial injury severity (initial Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score) and principal clinical outcomes (Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale relative to initial injury severity). The three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study addressed participants' general attitude toward inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial (general trial inclusion), their specific attitude toward being included in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under the exception from informed consent (personal exception from informed consent enrollment), and their attitude toward the use of exception from informed consent in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial in general (general exception from informed consent enrollment). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was performed to provide contextualization and to determine the extent to which respondents framed their attitudes in terms of clinical experience. RESULTS: Clinical data from Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were available for all 74 patients represented in the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study (including 46 patients for whom the surrogate was interviewed due to the patient's cognitive status or death). No significant difference was observed regarding acceptance of general trial inclusion or acceptance of general exception from informed consent enrollment between participants with favorable neurological outcomes and those with unfavorable outcomes relative to initial injury. Agreement with personal enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent, however, was significantly higher among participants with favorable outcomes compared to those with unfavorable outcomes (89% vs 59%, p = 0.003). There was also a statistically significant relationship between more severe initial injury and increased acceptance of personal exception from informed consent enrollment ( p = 0.040) or general exception from informed consent use ( p = 0.034) in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial. Many individuals referenced personal experience as a basis for their attitudes, but these references were not used to support negative views. CONCLUSION: Patients and surrogates of patients with unfavorable clinical outcomes were somewhat less accepting of their own inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent than were patients or surrogates of patients with favorable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest a need to identify optimal strategies for communicating with patients and their surrogates regarding exception from informed consent enrollment when clinical outcomes are poor.

Randomizing Patients without Consent: Waiver vs Exception from Informed Consent.

Cole JB , Ho JD , Biros MH . Randomizing patients without consent: waiver vs exception from informed consent. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(4):457-458.