Use of a novel "Split" ventilation system in bench and porcine modeling of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Split ventilation (using a single ventilator to ventilate multiple patients) is technically feasible. However, connecting two patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and differing lung mechanics to a single ventilator is concerning. This study aimed to: (1) determine functionality of a split ventilation system in benchtop tests, (2) determine whether standard ventilation would be superior to split ventilation in a porcine model of ARDS and (3) assess usability of a split ventilation system with minimal specific training. The functionality of a split ventilation system was assessed using test lungs. The usability of the system was assessed in simulated clinical scenarios. The feasibility of the system to provide modified lung protective ventilation was assessed in a porcine model of ARDS (n = 30). In bench testing a split ventilation system independently ventilated two test lungs under conditions of varying compliance and resistance. In usability tests, a high proportion of naïve operators could assemble and use the system. In the porcine model, modified lung protective ventilation was feasible with split ventilation and produced similar respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and biomarkers of lung injury when compared to standard ventilation. Split ventilation can provide some elements of lung protective ventilation and is feasible in bench testing and an in vivo model of ARDS.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin for ARDS secondary to COVID-19.

Background: Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop a febrile pro-inflammatory cytokinemia with accelerated progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Here we report the results of a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous (IV) plasma-purified alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) for moderate to severe ARDS secondary to COVID-19 (EudraCT 2020-001391-15). Methods: Patients (n = 36) were randomized to receive weekly placebo, weekly AAT (Prolastin, Grifols, S.A.; 120 mg/kg), or AAT once followed by weekly placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in plasma interleukin (IL)-6 concentration at 1 week. In addition to assessing safety and tolerability, changes in plasma levels of IL-1ß, IL-8, IL-10, and soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (sTNFR1) and clinical outcomes were assessed as secondary endpoints. Findings: Treatment with IV AAT resulted in decreased inflammation and was safe and well tolerated. The study met its primary endpoint, with decreased circulating IL-6 concentrations at 1 week in the treatment group. This was in contrast to the placebo group, where IL-6 was increased. Similarly, plasma sTNFR1 was substantially decreased in the treatment group while remaining unchanged in patients receiving placebo. IV AAT did not definitively reduce levels of IL-1ß, IL-8, and IL-10. No difference in mortality or ventilator-free days was observed between groups, although a trend toward decreased time on ventilator was observed in AAT-treated patients. Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, treatment with IV AAT was safe, feasible, and biochemically efficacious. The data support progression to a phase 3 trial and prompt further investigation of AAT as an anti-inflammatory therapeutic. Funding: ECSA-2020-009; Elaine Galwey Research Bursary.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial of intravenous plasma purified alpha-1 antitrypsin for SARS-CoV-2-induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to demonstrate that, in patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 resulting in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), administration of 120mg/kg of body weight of intravenous Prolastin®(plasma-purified alpha-1 antitrypsin) reduces circulating plasma levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6). Secondary objectives are to determine the effects of intravenous Prolastin® on important clinical outcomes including the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). TRIAL DESIGN: Phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot trial. PARTICIPANTS: The study will be conducted in Intensive Care Units in hospitals across Ireland. Patients with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2-infection, moderate to severe ARDS (meeting Berlin criteria for a diagnosis of ARDS with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <200 mmHg), >18 years of age and requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation. All individuals meeting any of the following exclusion criteria at baseline or during screening will be excluded from study participation: more than 96 hours has elapsed from onset of ARDS; age < 18 years; known to be pregnant or breastfeeding; participation in a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product (other than antibiotics or antivirals) within 30 days; major trauma in the prior 5 days; presence of any active malignancy (other than nonmelanoma skin cancer) which required treatment within the last year; WHO Class III or IV pulmonary hypertension; pulmonary embolism prior to hospital admission within past 3 months; currently receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS); chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis; severe chronic liver disease with Child-Pugh score > 12; DNAR (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation) order in place; treatment withdrawal imminent within 24 hours; Prisoners; non-English speaking patients or those who do not adequately understand verbal or written information unless an interpreter is available; IgA deficiency. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Either a once weekly intravenous infusion of Prolastin® at 120mg/kg of body weight for 4 weeks or a single dose of Prolastin® at 120mg/kg of body weight intravenously followed by once weekly intravenous infusion of an equal volume of 0.9% sodium chloride for a further 3 weeks. Comparator (placebo): An equal volume of 0.9% sodium chloride intravenously once per week for four weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary effectiveness outcome measure is the change in plasma concentration of IL-6 at 7 days as measured by ELISA. Secondary outcomes include: safety and tolerability of Prolastin® in the respective groups (as defined by the number of SAEs and AEs); PaO2/FiO2 ratio; respiratory compliance; sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score; mortality; time on ventilator in days; plasma concentration of alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) as measured by nephelometry; plasma concentrations of interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß), interleukin-8 (IL-8), interleukin-10 (IL-10), soluble TNF receptor 1 (sTNFR1, a surrogate marker for TNF-α) as measured by ELISA; development of shock; acute kidney injury; need for renal replacement therapy; clinical relapse, as defined by the need for readmission to the ICU or a marked decline in PaO2/FiO2 or development of shock or mortality following a period of sustained clinical improvement; secondary bacterial pneumonia as defined by the combination of radiographic findings and sputum/airway secretion microscopy and culture. RANDOMISATION: Following informed consent/assent patients will be randomised. The randomisation lists will be prepared by the study statistician and given to the unblinded trial personnel. However, the statistician will not be exposed to how the planned treatment will be allocated to the treatment codes. Randomisation will be conducted in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified by site and age. BLINDING (MASKING): The investigator, treating physician, other members of the site research team and patients will be blinded to treatment allocation. The clinical trial pharmacy personnel and research nurses will be unblinded to facilitate intervention and placebo preparation. The unblinded individuals will keep the treatment information confidential. The infusion bag will be masked at the time of preparation and will be administered via a masked infusion set to maintain blinding. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 36 patients will be recruited and randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to each of the trial arms. TRIAL STATUS: In March 2020, version 1.0 of the trial protocol was submitted to the local research ethics committee (REC), Health Research Consent Declaration Committee (HRCDC) and the Health Products regulatory Authority (HPRA). REC approval was granted on April 1st 2020, HPRA approval was granted on April 24th 2020 and the HRCDC provided a conditional declaration on April 17th 2020. In July 2020 a substantial amendment (version 2.0) was submitted to the REC, HRCDC and HPRA. Protocol changes in this amendment included: the addition of trial sites; extending the duration of the trial to 12 months from 3 months; removal of inclusion criteria requiring the need for vasopressors; amendment of randomisation schedule to stratify by age only and not BMI and sex; correction of grammatical error in relation to infusion duration; to allow for inclusion of subjects who may have been enrolled in a clinical trial involving either antibiotics or anti-virals in the past 30 days; to allow for inclusion of subjects who may be currently enrolled in a clinical trial involving either antibiotics or anti-virals; to remove the need for exclusion based on alpha-1 antitrypsin phenotype; removal of mandatory isoelectric focusing of plasma to confirm Pi*MM status at screening; removal of need for mandatory echocardiogram at screening; amendment on procedures around plasma analysis to reflect that this will be conducted at the central site laboratory (as trial is multi-site and no longer single site); wording amended to reflect that interim analysis of cytokine levels taken at 7 days may be conducted. HRCDC approved version 2.0 on September 14th 2020, and HPRA approved on October 22nd 2020. REC approved the substantial amendment on November 23rd. In November 2020, version 3.0 of the trial protocol was submitted to the REC and HPRA. The rationale for this amendment was to allow for patients with moderate to severe ARDS from SARS-CoV-2 with non-invasive ventilation. HPRA approved this amendment on December 1st 2020 and the REC approved the amendment on December 8th 2020. Patient recruitment commenced in April 2020 and the last patient will be recruited to the trial in April 2021. The last visit of the last patient is anticipated to occur in April 2021. At time of writing, patient recruitment is now complete, however follow-up patient visits and data collection are ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-001391-15 (Registered 31 Mar 2020). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 3.0 23.11.2020) is attached as an additional file accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

The National Competency Framework for Registered Nurses in Adult Critical Care: An overview.

In the years following the abolition of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in 2002, concerns were raised within the Critical Care nursing community about a lack of consistency in post-registration education programmes. In response to this, the Critical Care Network National Nurse Leads (CC3N) formed a sub-group, the Critical Care Nurse Education Review Forum (CCNERF) to address these concerns. A review of UK course provision confirmed marked inconsistency in the length, content and associated academic award. The CCNERF commenced a two-phase project, first developing national standards for critical care nurse education such as length of course and academic credit level, followed by the development of a national competency framework. Following significant review and revision, version two of the National Competency Framework for Registered Nurses in Adult Critical Care was published by CC3N in 2015. This paper introduces the National Competency Framework and provides an overview of its background, development and implementation. It then considers the future direction of UK post-registration Critical Care nurse education.

Benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and the risk of hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures in the older person lead to an increased risk of mortality, poorer quality of life and increased morbidity. Benzodiazepine (BNZ) use is associated with increased hip fracture rate, consequently Z-drugs are fast becoming the physician's hypnotic prescription of choice yet data on their use is limited. We compared the risk of hip fracture associated with Z-drugs and BNZ medications, respectively, and examined if this risk varied with longer-term use. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched to identify studies involving BNZ or Z-drugs and the risk of hip fracture up to May 2015. Each included study was quality-assessed. A pooled relative risk of hip fracture was calculated using the generic inverse variance method, with a random effects model, with the length of hypnotic usage as a subgroup. Both BNZ, and Z-drug use respectively, were significantly associated with an increased risk of hip fracture (RR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.37-1.68; and RR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.68-2.13). Short-term use of BNZ and Z-drugs respectively, was also associated with the greatest risk of hip fracture (RR = 2.40, 95% CI 1.88-3.05 and RR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.74-3.29). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that both BNZ and Z-drugs are associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in the older person, and there is little difference between their respective risks. Patients newly prescribed these medicines are at the greatest risk of hip fracture. Clinicians and policy makers need to consider the increased risk of fallings and hip fracture particularly amongst new users of these medications.