Can nebulised HepArin Reduce morTality and time to Extubation in patients with COVID-19 Requiring invasive ventilation Meta-Trial (CHARTER-MT): Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an investigator-initiated international meta-trial of prospective randomised clinical studies.

There is significant interest in the potential for nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH), as a novel therapy for patients with COVID-19 induced acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation. The scientific and biological rationale for nebulised heparin stems from the evidence for extensive activation of coagulation resulting in pulmonary microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19 pneumonia. Nebulised delivery of heparin to the lung may limit alveolar fibrin deposition and thereby limit progression of lung injury. Importantly, laboratory studies show that heparin can directly inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, thereby prevent its entry into and infection of mammalian cells. UFH has additional anti-inflammatory and mucolytic properties that may be useful in this context. METHODS AND INTERVENTION: The Can nebulised HepArin Reduce morTality and time to Extubation in Patients with COVID-19 Requiring invasive ventilation Meta-Trial (CHARTER-MT) is a collaborative prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled clinical trials across several countries in five continents, examining the effects of inhaled heparin in patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive ventilation on various endpoints. Each constituent study will randomise patients with COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation. Patients are randomised to receive nebulised heparin or standard care (open label studies) or placebo (blinded placebo-controlled studies) while under invasive ventilation. Each participating study collect a pre-defined minimum dataset. The primary outcome for the meta-trial is the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 day, defined as days alive and free from invasive ventilation.

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A multicentre case series of 98 patients.

AIMS: To determine the safety and efficacy-potential of inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective, uncontrolled multicentre single-arm case series of hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, treated with inhaled nebulised UFH (5000 IU q8h, 10 000 IU q4h, or 25 000 IU q6h) for 6 ± 3 (mean ± standard deviation) days. Outcomes were activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) before treatment (baseline) and highest-level during treatment (peak), and adverse events including bleeding. Exploratory efficacy outcomes were oxygenation, assessed by ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2 ) and FiO2 , and the World Health Organisation modified ordinal clinical scale. RESULTS: There were 98 patients included. In patients on stable prophylactic or therapeutic systemic anticoagulant therapy but not receiving therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels increased from baseline of 34 ± 10 seconds to a peak of 38 ± 11 seconds (P < .0001). In 3 patients on therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels did not significantly increase from baseline of 72 ± 20 to a peak of 84 ± 28 seconds (P = .17). Two patients had serious adverse events: bleeding gastric ulcer requiring transfusion and thigh haematoma; both were on therapeutic anticoagulation. Minor bleeding occurred in 16 patients, 13 of whom were on therapeutic anticoagulation. The oxygen saturation/FiO2 ratio and the FiO2 worsened before and improved after commencement of inhaled UFH (change in slope, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Inhaled nebulised UFH in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was safe. Although statistically significant, inhaled nebulised UFH did not produce a clinically relevant increase in APTT (peak values in the normal range). Urgent randomised evaluation of nebulised UFH in patients with COVID-19 is warranted and several studies are currently underway.

INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP): Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an investigator-initiated international metatrial of randomised studies.

AIMS: Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale that warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential in patients with COVID-19. UFH has antiviral effects and prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus' entry into mammalian cells. In addition, UFH has significant anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, which limit progression of lung injury and vascular pulmonary thrombosis. METHODS: The INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP) metatrial is a prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled trials and early phase studies. Individual studies are being conducted in multiple countries. Participating studies randomise adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who do not require immediate mechanical ventilation, to inhaled nebulised UFH or standard care. All studies collect a minimum core dataset. The primary outcome for the metatrial is intubation (or death, for patients who died before intubation) at day 28. The secondary outcomes are oxygenation, clinical worsening and mortality, assessed in time-to-event analyses. Individual studies may have additional outcomes. ANALYSIS: We use a Bayesian approach to monitoring, followed by analysing individual patient data, outcomes and adverse events. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle, considering all participants in the treatment group to which they were assigned, except for cases lost to follow-up or withdrawn. TRIAL REGISTRATION, ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The metatrial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04635241. Each contributing study is individually registered and has received approval of the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board. Results of this study will be shared with the World Health Organisation, published in scientific journals and presented at scientific meetings.

A Pilot Trial of Topical Capsaicin Cream for Treatment of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) present frequently to the emergency department. Previous case studies suggest dramatic symptomatic improvement with topical capsaicin treatment. This exploratory study examined the potential effectiveness of topical capsaicin in patients with nausea and vomiting due to a suspected CHS exacerbation. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled pilot trial. Adults who presented with vomiting suspected to be from CHS were eligible for enrollment. We excluded pregnant women and those with resolution of symptoms. Following randomization, topical 0.1% capsaicin or placebo cream was applied to the anterior abdomen in a uniform manner. The primary outcome was the severity of nausea on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 to 10 cm assessed at 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, occurrence of posttreatment vomiting, nausea by VAS at 60 minutes, and hospital admission. RESULTS: This pilot trial enrolled 30 patients, 17 in the capsaicin arm and 13 in the placebo arm. One patient in the capsaicin arm did not tolerate treatment due to skin irritation. Mean ± SD nausea severity at 30 minutes was 4.1 ± 2.3 cm in the capsaicin arm and 6.1 ± 3.3 cm in the placebo arm (difference = -2.0 cm, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to -4.2 cm). At 60 minutes, mean ± SD nausea severity was 3.2 ± 3.2 cm versus 6.4 ± 2.8 cm (difference = -3.2 cm, 95% CI = -0.9 to -5.4 cm). The percent reduction in nausea at 60 minutes from baseline was 46.0% in the capsaicin arm and 24.9% in the placebo arm (difference = 21.1%, 95% CI = -5.6% to 47.9%). A higher proportion of capsaicin group patients (29.4% vs. 0%) had complete resolution of nausea (relative risk = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.6 to 7.1). CONCLUSION: In this pilot trial, the application of topical capsaicin cream was associated with a significant reduction in nausea at 60 minutes but not at 30 minutes and provided more complete relief of nausea.

Using lean methodology to optimize time to antibiotic administration in patients with sepsis.

PURPOSE: Results of a study to apply lean methodology to an inpatient pharmacy workflow to optimize timely administration of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-approved antibiotics for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock are presented. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study was conducted at an 802-bed institution using lean methodology to assess the inpatient pharmacy workflow for dispensing antibiotics to adult patients. The preintervention and postintervention phases occurred from February to September, 2015, and from October 2015 to May 2016, respectively. Patients were included if they were hospitalized with an intensive care department 9 or 10 code for severe sepsis or septic shock, had an order for a CMS-approved antibiotic, and met clinical criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were excluded if they received first-dose antibiotics in the emergency department. The primary outcome was time from CMS-approved antibiotic order entry to medication administration. Secondary outcomes included timeliness of individual workflow dispensing parameters, patient outcomes, and compliance with the newly implemented workflow. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were included, 54 in the preintervention and 48 in the postintervention group. Baseline demographics between the groups were similar. There was a significant reduction in the median time from order entry to antibiotic administration by 40 minutes (preintervention phase 120 minutes versus postintervention phase 80 minutes, p = 0.014). Time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced. There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lean methodology was successfully used to reduce time to antibiotic administration, which led to improved compliance with the newly implemented sepsis CMS core measure.

Heavy metal in the intensive care unit: a review of current literature on trace element supplementation in critically ill patients.

Trace elements are essential for many physiologic processes. In recent years, supplementation has been studied for a variety of indications, including glycemic control, wound healing, antioxidant effect, and anemia. Critical illness, especially states such as burns, traumas, and septic shock, is associated with inflammatory and oxidative stress, immune dysfunction, and malnutrition. In these patients, enteral and parenteral nutrition or pharmaceutical supplementation is used to provide essential macronutrients, including trace elements. The purpose of this review is to describe trace element supplementation, including iron, copper, chromium, manganese, selenium, and zinc, and highlight their mechanism, pharmacology, outcome data, and adverse effects.