A New Global Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods: A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results: The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ⩾30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:FiO2 ⩽ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ⩽97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions: We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Differences in US Regional Healthcare Allocation Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals faced unprecedented scarcity of resources without parallel in modern times during the COVID-19 pandemic. This scarcity led healthcare systems and states to develop or modify scarce resource allocation guidelines that could be implemented during "crisis standards of care" (CSC). CSC describes a significant change in healthcare operations and the level of care provided during a public health emergency. OBJECTIVE: Our study provides a comprehensive examination of the latest CSC guidelines in the western region of the USA, where Alaska and Idaho declared CSC, focusing on ethical issues and health disparities. DESIGN: Mixed-methods survey study of physicians and/or ethicists and review of healthcare system and state allocation guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: Ten physicians and/or ethicists who participated in scarce resource allocation guideline development from seven healthcare systems or three state-appointed committees from the western region of the USA including Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and California. RESULTS: All sites surveyed developed allocation guidelines, but only four (40%) were operationalized either statewide or for specific scarce resources. Most guidelines included comorbidities (70%), and half included adjustments for socioeconomic disadvantage (50%), while only one included specific priority groups (10%). Allocation tiebreakers included the life cycle principle and random number generators. Six guidelines evolved over time, removing restrictions such as age, severity of illness, and comorbidities. Additional palliative care (20%) and ethics (50%) resources were planned by some guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Allocation guidelines are essential to support clinicians during public health emergencies; however, significant deficits and differences in guidelines were identified that may perpetuate structural inequities and racism. While a universal triage protocol that is equally accepted by all communities is unlikely, the lack of regional agreement on standards with justification and transparency has the potential to erode public trust and perpetuate inequity.

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Association Between Financial Distress with Patient and Caregiver Outcomes in Home-Based Palliative Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness often causes financial hardship for patients and families. Home-based palliative care (HBPC) may partly address this. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence and characteristics of patients and family caregivers with high financial distress at HBPC admission and examine the relationship between financial distress and patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for this cohort study were drawn from a pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial testing two models of HBPC in Kaiser Permanente. We included 779 patients and 438 caregivers from January 2019 to January 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Financial distress at admission to HBPC was measured using a global question (0-10-point scale: none=0; mild=1-5; moderate/severe=6+). Patient- (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, distress thermometer, PROMIS-10) and caregiver (Preparedness for Caregiving, Zarit-12 Burden, PROMIS-10)-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and 1 month. Hospital utilization was captured using electronic medical records and claims. Mixed-effects adjusted models assessed survey measures and a proportional hazard competing risk model assessed hospital utilization. RESULTS: Half of the patients reported some level of financial distress with younger patients more likely to have moderate/severe financial distress. Patients with moderate/severe financial distress at HBPC admission reported worse symptoms, general distress, and quality of life (QoL), and caregivers reported worse preparedness, burden, and QoL (all, p<.001). Compared to patients with no financial distress, moderate/severe financial distress patients had more social work contacts, improved symptom burden at 1 month (ESAS total score: -4.39; 95% CI: -7.61, -1.17; p<.01), and no increase in hospital-based utilization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.40; p=.41); their caregivers had improved PROMIS-10 mental scores (+2.68; 95% CI: 0.20, 5.16; p=.03). No other group differences were evident in the caregiver preparedness, burden, and physical QoL change scores. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance and need for routine assessments of financial distress and for provision of social supports required to help families receiving palliative care services.

Informing Healthcare Decisions with Observational Research Assessing Causal Effect. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Rationale: Decisions in medicine are made on the basis of knowledge and reasoning, often in shared conversations with patients and families in consideration of clinical practice guideline recommendations, individual preferences, and individual goals. Observational studies can provide valuable knowledge to inform guidelines, decisions, and policy.Objectives: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) created a multidisciplinary ad hoc committee to develop a research statement to clarify the role of observational studies-alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs)-in informing clinical decisions in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.Methods: The committee examined the strengths of observational studies assessing causal effects, how they complement RCTs, factors that impact observational study quality, perceptions of observational research, and, finally, the practicalities of incorporating observational research into ATS clinical practice guidelines.Measurements and Main Results: There are strengths and weakness of observational studies as well as RCTs. Observational studies can provide evidence in representative and diverse patient populations. Quality observational studies should be sought in the development of ATS clinical practice guidelines, and medical decision-making in general, when 1) no RCTs are identified or RCTs are appraised as being of low- or very low-quality (replacement); 2) RCTs are of moderate quality because of indirectness, imprecision, or inconsistency, and observational studies mitigate the reason that RCT evidence was downgraded (complementary); or 3) RCTs do not provide evidence for outcomes that a guideline committee considers essential for decision-making (e.g., rare or long-term outcomes; "sequential").Conclusions: Observational studies should be considered in developing clinical practice guidelines and in making clinical decisions.

Web-Based Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Well-being: Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). METHODS: Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. RESULTS: We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321.

Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care. METHODS: We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification). We refined strategies to select the most applicable, valid, and precise evidence. RESULTS: Two processes were important when assessing the balance of benefits and harms of interventions: (1) engaging stakeholders and (2) stratification by patient preferences and characteristics. Engaging patients and caregivers through focus groups, preference surveys, and as co-investigators provided value in prioritizing research questions, identifying relevant clinical outcomes, and clarifying the relative importance of these outcomes. Our strategies to select evidence for stratified benefit-harm assessments considered consistency across outcomes and subgroups. By quantitatively estimating the range in the benefit-harm balance resulting from true variation in preferences, we clarified whether the benefit-harm balance is preference sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: Our approaches for engaging patients and caregivers at all phases of the stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments were feasible and revealed how sensitive the benefit-harm balance is to patient characteristics and individual preferences. Accordingly, this sensitivity can suggest to guideline developers when to tailor recommendations for specific patient subgroups or when to explicitly leave decision making to individual patients and their providers.

Improving Lung Function in Severe Heterogenous Emphysema with the Spiration Valve System (EMPROVE). A Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control).Measurements and Main Results: The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups-between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060-0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048-0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax.Conclusions: In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Agreement With Consensus Statements on End-of-Life Care: A Description of Variability at the Level of the Provider, Hospital, and Country.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an enhanced understanding of factors that influence providers' views about end-of-life care, we examined the contributions of provider, hospital, and country to variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Data were drawn from a survey of providers' views on principles of end-of-life care obtained during the consensus process for the Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs study. SUBJECTS: Participants in Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in ICUs included physicians, nurses, and other providers. Our sample included 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We examined views on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, using a three-level linear mixed model of responses from providers within hospitals within countries. Of 1,068 providers from 178 hospitals and 31 countries, 1% strongly disagreed, 7% disagreed, 11% were neutral, 44% agreed, and 36% strongly agreed with declining to offer cardiopulmonary resuscitation when not indicated. Of the total variability in those responses, 98%, 0%, and 2% were explained by differences among providers, hospitals, and countries, respectively. After accounting for provider characteristics and hospital size, the variance partition was similar. Results were similar for withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in agreement with consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers. Acknowledging the primary source of variability may facilitate efforts to achieve consensus and improve decision-making for critically ill patients and their family members at the end of life.

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling.

BACKGROUND: Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments. METHODS: We sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals. RESULTS: Of 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines That Address Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Having more than one chronic condition is common and is associated with greater health care utilization, higher medication burden and complexity of treatment. However, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not routinely address the balance between harms and benefits of treatments for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). OBJECTIVE: To partner with the Kaiser Permanente Integrated Cardiovascular Health (ICVH) program to engage multiple stakeholders in a mixed-methods approach in order to: 1) identify two high-priority clinical questions related to MCCs, and 2) understand patients' and family caregivers' perceptions of meaningful outcomes to inform benefit/harm assessments for these two high-priority questions. These clinical questions and outcomes will be used to inform CPG recommendations for people with MCCs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The ICVH program provided 130 topics rank-ordered by the potential for finding evidence that would change clinical recommendations regarding the topic. We used a modified Delphi method to identify and reword topics into questions relevant to people with MCCs. We used two sets of focus groups (n = 27) to elicit patient and caregiver perspectives on two important research questions and relevant patient-important outcomes on benefit/harm balance for people with MCCs. KEY RESULTS: Co-investigators, patients and caregivers identified "optimal blood pressure goals" and "diabetes medication management" as important clinical topics for CPGs related to people with MCCs. Stakeholders identified a list of relevant outcomes to be addressed in future CPG development including 1) physical function and energy, 2) emotional health and well-being, 3) avoidance of treatment burden, side effects and risks, 4) interaction with providers and health care system, and 5) prevention of adverse long-term health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of a mixed-methods process, we identified the questions regarding optimal blood pressure goals and diabetes medication management, along with related patient-centered outcomes, to inform novel evidence syntheses for those with MCCs. This study provides the lessons learned and a generalizable process for CPG developers to engage patient and caregivers in priority-setting for the translation of evidence into future CPGs. Ultimately, engaging patient and stakeholders around MCCs could improve the relevance of CPGs for the care of people with MCCs.

An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement: Implementation Science in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Many advances in health care fail to reach patients. Implementation science is the study of novel approaches to mitigate this evidence-to-practice gap. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) created a multidisciplinary ad hoc committee to develop a research statement on implementation science in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. The committee used an iterative consensus process to define implementation science and review the use of conceptual frameworks to guide implementation science for the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep community and to explore how professional medical societies such as the ATS can promote implementation science. RESULTS: The committee defined implementation science as the study of the mechanisms by which effective health care interventions are either adopted or not adopted in clinical and community settings. The committee also distinguished implementation science from the act of implementation. Ideally, implementation science should include early and continuous stakeholder involvement and the use of conceptual frameworks (i.e., models to systematize the conduct of studies and standardize the communication of findings). Multiple conceptual frameworks are available, and we suggest the selection of one or more frameworks on the basis of the specific research question and setting. Professional medical societies such as the ATS can have an important role in promoting implementation science. Recommendations for professional societies to consider include: unifying implementation science activities through a single organizational structure, linking front-line clinicians with implementation scientists, seeking collaborations to prioritize and conduct implementation science studies, supporting implementation science projects through funding opportunities, working with research funding bodies to set the research agenda in the field, collaborating with external bodies responsible for health care delivery, disseminating results of implementation science through scientific journals and conferences, and teaching the next generation about implementation science through courses and other media. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science plays an increasingly important role in health care. Through support of implementation science, the ATS and other professional medical societies can work with other stakeholders to lead this effort.

Family Perspectives on Overall Care in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Family members' perspectives about satisfaction with care provided in the intensive care unit (ICU) have become an important part of quality assessment and improvement, but national and international differences may exist in care provided and family perspectives about satisfaction with care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the research was to understand family members' perspectives regarding overall care of medical patients receiving intensive care. METHODS: Family members of medical patients who remained 48 hours or more in two adult ICUS at two healthcare institutions in the U.S. Pacific Northwest took part by responding to the Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit survey. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify major categories and subcategories in their complimentary (positive) or critical (negative) responses to open-ended questions. The number of comments in each category and subcategory was counted. RESULTS: Of 138 responding family members, 106 answered the open-ended questions. The 281 comments were more frequently complimentary (n = 126) than critical (n = 91). Three main categories (competent care, communication, and environment) and nine subcategories were identified. Comments about the subcategory of emotional/interrelational aspects of care occurred most frequently and were more positive than comments about practical aspects of care. DISCUSSION: Findings were similar to those reported from other countries. Emotional/interrelational aspects of care were integral to family member satisfaction with care provided. Findings suggest that improving communication and decision-making, supporting family members, and caring for family loved ones as a person are important care targets. Initiatives to improve ICU care should include assessments from families and opportunity for qualitative analysis to refine care targets and assess changes.

Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature on the accuracy of screening questionnaires and office-based screening pulmonary function testing and the efficacy and harms of treatment of screen-detected COPD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant English-language studies published through January 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and studies. The search yielded 13,141 unique citations; 465 full-text articles were reviewed, and 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers rated the quality of each study using USPSTF criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]; treatment efficacy (COPD exacerbations, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and dyspnea); and treatment harms. RESULTS: All screening questionnaires were based on symptoms as well as risk factors such as age and smoking history. The COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire was the most extensively studied (5 studies, n = 3048), with moderate overall performance for COPD detection: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.65 to 0.72; sensitivity, 80% to 93%; and specificity, 24% to 49%, at a threshold of greater than 16.5. Positive predictive value and NPV ranged from 17% to 45% and 76% to 98%, respectively. For pulmonary function-based screening tools, FEV1/FEV6 was the best studied (3 studies, n = 1587), with AUC ranging from 0.84 to 0.85. Sensitivity ranged from 51% to 80%. Specificity (range, 90%-95%) and PPV (range, 63%-75%) appeared better than questionnaires. There was not strong evidence to support that screening and supplying smokers with spirometry results improves smoking cessation rates. Treatment trials were unavailable for screen-detected patients. Trials that reported outcomes in patients with mild to moderate COPD included 2 trials of long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs) (n = 3174), 1 RCT of LABAs and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (n = 1097), 5 RCTs of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium (n = 4592), and 6 RCTs of ICS (n = 3983). They suggested no benefit in all-cause mortality, but a decrease in annual rates of exacerbations with pharmacologic treatments. Few trials reported harms for any individual drug class. Adverse effects were generally mild (eg, dry mouth and cough). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no direct evidence available to determine the benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic adults for COPD using questionnaires or office-based screening pulmonary function testing or to determine the benefits of treatment in screen-detected populations. Indirect evidence suggests that the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire has moderate overall performance for COPD detection. Among patients with mild to moderate COPD, the benefit of pharmacotherapy for reducing exacerbations was modest.

A randomised trial of lung sealant versus medical therapy for advanced emphysema.

Uncontrolled pilot studies demonstrated promising results of endoscopic lung volume reduction using emphysematous lung sealant (ELS) in patients with advanced, upper lobe predominant emphysema. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELS in a randomised controlled setting.Patients were randomised to ELS plus medical treatment or medical treatment alone. Despite early termination for business reasons and inability to assess the primary 12-month end-point, 95 out of 300 patients were successfully randomised, providing sufficient data for 3- and 6-month analysis.57 patients (34 treatment and 23 control) had efficacy results at 3 months; 34 (21 treatment and 13 control) at 6 months. In the treatment group, 3-month lung function, dyspnoea, and quality of life improved significantly from baseline when compared to control. Improvements persisted at 6 months with >50% of treated patients experiencing clinically important improvements, including some whose lung function improved by >100%. 44% of treated patients experienced adverse events requiring hospitalisation (2.5-fold more than control, p=0.01), with two deaths in the treated cohort. Treatment responders tended to be those experiencing respiratory adverse events.Despite early termination, results show that minimally invasive ELS may be efficacious, yet significant risks (probably inflammatory) limit its current utility.

Multicenter study comparing case definitions used to identify patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

RATIONALE: Clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) usually require evidence of airflow obstruction and clinical risk factors. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes or patient-reported physician diagnoses are often used for epidemiologic studies and performance improvement programs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate agreement between these case definitions for COPD and to assess the comparability of study populations identified as having COPD not using the clinical trial reference standard. METHODS: We recruited patients from the COPD Outcomes-based Network for Clinical Effectiveness and Research Translation multicenter clinical registry in a cross-sectional study. Demographics, clinical, and post-bronchodilator spirometry data were collected at an in-person study visit. The kappa statistic (κ) was used to evaluate agreement. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify patient characteristics associated with meeting the trial reference standard. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 998 (82.8%) of 1,206 study participants met at least one case definition for COPD (of the 998: 91% using ICD-9 codes, 73% using patient-reported physician diagnosis, 56% using trial reference standard); agreement between case definitions was poor (κ = 0.20-0.26). Lack of airflow obstruction was the principal (89%) reason patients identified as having COPD did not meet the trial reference standard. Patients who were black (vs. white), obese (vs. normal weight), or had depression (vs. not) were less likely to meet the trial reference standard (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.37 [0.26-0.53], 0.51 [0.34-0.75], 0.53 [0.40-0.71], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight concerns about the applicability of findings in clinical trials to patients meeting other case definitions for COPD.

Seeking worldwide professional consensus on the principles of end-of-life care for the critically ill. The Consensus for Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in Intensive Care Units (WELPICUS) study.

Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as >80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had >90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus was obtained for 77 of 81 (95%) statements. Worldwide consensus could be developed for the majority of definitions and statements about end-of-life practices. Statements achieving consensus provide standards of practice for end-of-life care; statements without consensus identify important areas for future research.

Family members' views on the benefits of harp music vigils for terminally-ill or dying loved ones.

OBJECTIVES: Music-thanatology is a palliative modality that uses harp and voice to provide bedside vigils, particularly for terminally ill or actively dying. We sought to determine the benefits of music vigils for terminally ill patients. METHODS: Survey of 55 family members, whose terminally ill loved one experienced a music vigil during hospitalization, regarding effects on the patient's breathing, relaxation, comfort, pain and ability to sleep. Written comments on negative and positive results of the vigils were coded using content analysis. RESULTS: Family members perceived that the vigils resulted in modest improvement in the patients' breathing, relaxation, comfort, and ability to sleep, with fewer positive effects on pain, and almost no negative effects. Open ended comments focused on the positive benefit in increasing calm, relaxation, comfort. Comments on the positive effects for the family were almost as common as comments on the positive results for the patient. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The use of music-vigils in palliative care should be investigated more extensively as our study supports that this intervention has benefits, almost no risk, minimal cost, and may improve patient-family experience of the dying process.