Center for clinical and translational research COVID-19 clinical trial committee: The development of a review and prioritization matrix during a pandemic.

The rate at which the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) spread required a rapid response across many, if not all, industries. Academic medical centers had to rapidly evaluate, prioritize, and coordinate the multiple requests for clinical trial participation. This involved redirecting resources and developing a collaborative system for assessment, decision making, and implementation. Our institution formed a team with diverse representation from multiple stakeholders to review and prioritize all research protocols related to COVID-19. To accomplish this, a prioritization matrix was developed to help determine the order in which the protocols should be placed for consideration by the treating clinician. The purpose of the team was to review the COVID-19 clinical trials in the pipeline, prioritize those trials that best met the needs of our patients, oversee training and resource needs, and lead the formulation of procedures for integration with clinical care. Resources from the Clinical Research Unit were then allocated to support the swift execution of such studies. This manuscript describes that process, the challenges encountered, and the lessons learned on how to make all clinical trials more successful in a complex and dynamic environment.

Economic Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With and Without Ambulation as a Bridge to Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of centers are using active rehabilitation and ambulation for critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to lung transplantation. This investigation assessed the economic impact at a single center of ambulatory versus non-ambulatory ECMO strategies as a bridge to lung transplantation. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort analysis of all subjects supported with ECMO as a bridge to lung transplantation (N = 9) from 2007 to 2012. Subjects who were rehabilitated while supported with ECMO before lung transplantation were compared with those who were not rehabilitated during ECMO. Hospital cost data for the month before transplantation through 12 months after the initial post-transplant hospital discharge were compared. RESULTS: The median cost (interquartile range [IQR]) in the 30 d before transplant for the ambulatory cohort was $88,137 (IQR $38,589-$122,111) compared with $52,124 (IQR $23,824-$69,929) for the non-ambulatory cohort (P = .08). The median post-transplant ICU cost for the ambulatory cohort was $38,468 (IQR $23,611-$64,126) compared with $143,407 (IQR $112,199-$168,993) for the non-ambulatory cohort (P = .01). The median total hospital cost for subjects supported with ambulatory ECMO was $213,086 (IQR $166,767-$264,536) compared with $273,291 (IQR $237,299-$374,175) for non-ambulatory ECMO subjects (P = .05). The median total cost for the ambulatory cohort was $268,194 (IQR $219,972-$517,320) compared with $300,307 (IQR $274,262-$394,913) for the non-ambulatory cohort (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects supported with ambulatory ECMO had a 22% ($60,204) reduction in total hospital cost, 73% ($104,939) reduction in post-transplant ICU cost, and 11% ($32,133) reduction in total cost compared with non-ambulatory ECMO subjects. This analysis demonstrates the potential economic benefit of rehabilitation and ambulation during ECMO compared with a traditional strategy.