Real-World Effectiveness of Remdesivir in Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Retrospective, Multicenter Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the real-world effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative effectiveness study. Individuals hospitalized in a large private healthcare network in the United States from 23 February 2020 through 11 February 2021 with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes consistent with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were included. Remdesivir recipients were matched to controls using time-dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was time to improvement with a secondary outcome of time to death. RESULTS: Of 96 859 COVID-19 patients, 42 473 (43.9%) received at least 1 remdesivir dose. The median age of remdesivir recipients was 65 years, 23 701 (55.8%) were male, and 22 819 (53.7%) were non-White. Matches were found for 18 328 patients (43.2%). Remdesivir recipients were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.22). Remdesivir patients on no oxygen (aHR 1.30, 95% CI, 1.22-1.38) or low-flow oxygen (aHR 1.23, 95% CI, 1.19-1.27) were significantly more likely to achieve clinical improvement by 28 days. There was no significant impact on the likelihood of mortality overall (aHR 1.02, 95% CI, .97-1.08). Remdesivir recipients on low-flow oxygen were significantly less likely to die than controls (aHR 0.85, 95% CI, .77-.92; 28-day mortality 8.4% [865 deaths] for remdesivir patients, 12.5% [1334 deaths] for controls). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of remdesivir for hospitalized COVID-19 patients on no or low-flow oxygen. Routine initiation of remdesivir in more severely ill patients is unlikely to be beneficial.

Use of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir, and Dexamethasone Among Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the United States : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the use patterns of potential pharmacologic treatments of COVID-19 in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To use the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a large, multicenter, longitudinal cohort, to characterize the use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and dexamethasone, overall as well as across individuals, health systems, and time. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 43 health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 137 870 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. MEASUREMENTS: Inpatient use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, or dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 137 870 persons hospitalized with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, 8754 (6.3%) received hydroxychloroquine, 29 272 (21.2%) remdesivir, and 53 909 (39.1%) dexamethasone during the study period. Since the release of results from the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial in mid-June, approximately 78% to 84% of people who have had invasive mechanical ventilation have received dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. The use of hydroxychloroquine increased during March 2020, peaking at 42%, and started declining by April 2020. By contrast, remdesivir and dexamethasone use gradually increased over the study period. Dexamethasone and remdesivir use varied substantially across health centers (intraclass correlation coefficient, 14.2% for dexamethasone and 84.6% for remdesivir). LIMITATION: Because most N3C data contributors are academic medical centers, findings may not reflect the experience of community hospitals. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone, an evidence-based treatment of COVID-19, may be underused among persons who are mechanically ventilated. The use of remdesivir and dexamethasone varied across health systems, suggesting variation in patient case mix, drug access, treatment protocols, and quality of care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and National Institute on Aging.

Informing best practice for conducting morbidity and mortality reviews: a literature review.

Objective Preventable hospital mortality is a critical public health issue, particularly when mortalities are associated with events that are preventable. Mortality and morbidity reviews (MMRs) provide a rigorous, systematic, open, collaborative and transparent review process for clinicians to examine areas of improvement. The aim of the present review was to explore the evidence for best practice when conducting MMRs. Methods Searches of published and grey literature from 2009 to February 2016 were conducted. This period was selected to update a previous review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria was established a priori and based on the Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) framework. Specific search terms were generated and used to identify relevant articles, with reference lists and citing articles also screened for inclusions. Titles and abstracts were screened and duplicates removed. Study details regarding setting, study design, reported outcomes, tool type, clinicians present and the timing of MMRs were extracted and summarised. Results After screening, 31 documents were included in the present review: 20 peer-reviewed articles and 11 items from the grey literature. Specific outcomes reported included mortality rates, satisfaction, education, cost and quality of care. The most common features of MMRs included timing, leadership, attendees, case presentation format, terms of reference, agenda and governance. Conclusions MMRs decrease gross mortality rates and are effective in identifying and engaging clinicians in system improvements. MMRs should not focus on the actions of individuals, rather on education and/or quality improvement. MMRs should consist of a multidisciplinary team following a structured presentation format with an analysis of error process including actions to be followed-up. Further, it is possible for a single standardised MMR to be implemented hospital wide. What is known about the topic? MMRs are conducted in a variety of clinical settings to educate clinicians and improve patient care. What does this paper add? This review updates a previous review published in 2009 and summarises current evidence around morbidity and mortality reviews. This review also provides a framework for a standardised MMR to be implemented hospital wide. What are the implications for practitioners? This summary of the evidence can be used to guide the development, formation or conduct of MMRs in any healthcare setting.

Does the Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter Make a Difference During or After Cardiac Surgery?

Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) were introduced in 1970. Since then, their use has steadily increased. However, there have been questions raised regarding their efficacy for multiple clinical scenarios. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of routine use of PACs post cardiac surgery on mortality, complications, days in intensive care unit, days in hospital, and costs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, or patients who end up in an intensive care unit. METHODS: Medline, All EBM, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched using predetermined search terms. Google, British Medical Journal (BMJ) Best Practice, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were also searched. All searches were from 2012 to current to update a previous review from 2013. Studies were included if they involved adult cardiac surgery patients, or intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring haemodynamic monitoring. All other surgical patients were excluded. RESULTS: Six articles were included in this review. Of the six articles, five were randomised or observational studies, and one was an expert recommendation. For all cardiac surgery patients and patients having coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in mortality. There was an increase in mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, who had a PAC. For patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (LOS) but for patients following cardiac surgery total length of hospital stay >30days was greater in patients with a PAC. For patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, in-hospital costs for the entire hospitalisation were higher in patients with a PAC and, there was no difference in complications between PAC and a central venous catheter use. Overall, PACs were not a predictor of worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review revealed that PAC use was associated with a poorer outcome in a small subset of cardiac surgical patients but in the majority of patients PAC use made no difference to outcome. Further studies are required to confirm the true safety and efficacy of PAC use in cardiac surgery.