A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Guardian-Perceived Cosmetic Outcome of Simple Lacerations Repaired With Either Dermabond, Steri-Strips, or Absorbable Sutures.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the guardian-perceived 3-month cosmetic outcome for pediatric lacerations repaired with absorbable sutures, Dermabond, or Steri-Strips. Secondarily, pain and satisfaction with the procedure from both guardian and provider perspectives were compared. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of children aged 0 to <18 years who presented with simple linear lacerations (≤5 cm in length, ≤0.5 cm in width, and <12 hours old) to a pediatric emergency department. Children were randomized to receive laceration repair with absorbable sutures, Dermabond, or Steri-Strips. Topical L.E.T. solution (lidocaine, epinephrine, tetracaine) was applied to wounds which were then closed by the primary team. Guardians and providers completed questionnaires regarding perceived pain and satisfaction with the procedure. Guardians were contacted 3 months after the repair and asked to email a picture of the scar with their perception of cosmesis rated on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled, of whom 30 completed 3-month follow-up (12 suture, 7 Dermabond, 11 Steri-strips). There was no statistical evidence of an association between scar appearance and closure method based on medians and interquartile ranges for cosmetic ratings of scar: suture median 70.5 (IQR 59.8-76.8), Dermabond median 85 (IQR 73-90), Steri-strips median 67 (IQR 55-78) (P = 0.254). Guardian satisfaction with length of stay, guardian and physician satisfaction with the procedure, and guardian and physician-perceived pain also showed no differences. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed in guardian-perceived cosmesis of simple lacerations repaired with sutures, Dermabond, or Steri-Strips when evaluated 3 months after intervention. In addition, there were no differences in guardian or physician-perceived pain or satisfaction with the closure methods. The results of this study suggest that all 3 closure methods appear to be clinically equivalent, which is largely consistent with other evidence. Further study should be expanded to a larger demographic.

Out-of-Hospital Intranasal Ketamine as an Adjunct to Fentanyl for the Treatment of Acute Traumatic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if out-of-hospital administration of fentanyl and intranasal ketamine, compared to fentanyl alone, improves early pain control after injury. METHODS: We conducted an out-of-hospital randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded, parallel group clinical trial from October 2017 to December 2021. Participants were male, aged 18 to 65 years, receiving fentanyl to treat acute traumatic pain prior to hospital arrival, treated by an urban fire-based emergency medical services agency, and transported to the region's only adult Level I trauma center. Participants randomly received 50 mg intranasal ketamine or placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion with a minimum 2-point reduction in self-described pain on the verbal numerical rating scale 30 minutes after study drug administration assessed by 95% confidence interval overlap. Secondary outcomes were side effects, pain ratings, and additional pain medications through the first 3 hours of care. RESULTS: Among the 192 participants enrolled, 89 (46%) were White, (median age, 36 years; interquartile range, 27 to 53 years), with 103 receiving ketamine and 89 receiving placebo. There was no difference in the proportion experiencing improved pain 30 minutes after treatment (46/103 [44.7%] ketamine versus 32/89 [36.0%] placebo; difference in proportions, 8.7%; 95% confidence interval, -5.1% to 22.5%; P=.22) or at any time point through 3 hours. There was no difference in secondary outcomes or side effects. CONCLUSION: In our sample, we did not detect an analgesic benefit of adding 50 mg intranasal ketamine to fentanyl in out-of-hospital trauma patients.

Effect of Montelukast vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposed medications in treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Between January 27, 2023, and June 23, 2023, 1250 participants ≥30 years of age with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days, were included across 104 US sites to evaluate the use of montelukast. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or matched placebo for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell. Results: Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 53 years (IQR 42-62), 60.2% were female, 64.6% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 56.3% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.92-1.12; P(efficacy) = 0.63]). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% confidence interval 10-11) in both groups. No deaths were reported and 2 hospitalizations were reported in each group; 36 participants reported healthcare utilization events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 18 in the montelukast group compared with 18 in the placebo group (HR 1.01; 95% CrI 0.45-1.84; P(efficacy)=0.48). Five participants experienced serious adverse events (3 with montelukast and 2 with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Upstrapping to determine futility: predicting future outcomes nonparametrically from past data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials often involve some form of interim monitoring to determine futility before planned trial completion. While many options for interim monitoring exist (e.g., alpha-spending, conditional power), nonparametric based interim monitoring methods are also needed to account for more complex trial designs and analyses. The upstrap is one recently proposed nonparametric method that may be applied for interim monitoring. METHODS: Upstrapping is motivated by the case resampling bootstrap and involves repeatedly sampling with replacement from the interim data to simulate thousands of fully enrolled trials. The p-value is calculated for each upstrapped trial and the proportion of upstrapped trials for which the p-value criteria are met is compared with a pre-specified decision threshold. To evaluate the potential utility for upstrapping as a form of interim futility monitoring, we conducted a simulation study considering different sample sizes with several different proposed calibration strategies for the upstrap. We first compared trial rejection rates across a selection of threshold combinations to validate the upstrapping method. Then, we applied upstrapping methods to simulated clinical trial data, directly comparing their performance with more traditional alpha-spending and conditional power interim monitoring methods for futility. RESULTS: The method validation demonstrated that upstrapping is much more likely to find evidence of futility in the null scenario than the alternative across a variety of simulations settings. Our three proposed approaches for calibration of the upstrap had different strengths depending on the stopping rules used. Compared to O'Brien-Fleming group sequential methods, upstrapped approaches had type I error rates that differed by at most 1.7% and expected sample size was 2-22% lower in the null scenario, while in the alternative scenario power fluctuated between 15.7% lower and 0.2% higher and expected sample size was 0-15% lower. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept simulation study, we evaluated the potential for upstrapping as a resampling-based method for futility monitoring in clinical trials. The trade-offs in expected sample size, power, and type I error rate control indicate that the upstrap can be calibrated to implement futility monitoring with varying degrees of aggressiveness and that performance similarities can be identified relative to considered alpha-spending and conditional power futility monitoring methods.

Abatacept Pharmacokinetics and Exposure Response in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Secondary Analysis of the ACTIV-1 IM Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The pharmacokinetics of abatacept and the association between abatacept exposure and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To characterize abatacept pharmacokinetics, relate drug exposure with clinical outcomes, and evaluate the need for dosage adjustments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of data from the ACTIV-1 (Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines) Immune Modulator (IM) randomized clinical trial conducted between October 16, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The trial included hospitalized adults who received abatacept in addition to standard of care for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Data analysis was performed between September 2022 and February 2024. Exposure: Single intravenous infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 1000 mg). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality at day 28 was the primary outcome of interest, and time to recovery at day 28 was the secondary outcome. Drug exposure was assessed using the projected area under the serum concentration time curve over 28 days (AUC0-28). Logistic regression modeling was used to analyze the association between drug exposure and 28-day mortality, adjusted for age, sex, and disease severity. The association between time to recovery and abatacept exposure was examined using Fine-Gray modeling with death as a competing risk, and was adjusted for age, sex, and disease severity. Results: Of the 509 patients who received abatacept, 395 patients with 848 serum samples were included in the population pharmacokinetic analysis. Their median age was 55 (range, 19-89) years and most (250 [63.3%]) were men. Abatacept clearance increased with body weight and more severe disease activity at baseline. Drug exposure was higher in patients who survived vs those who died, with a median AUC0-28 of 21 428 (range, 8462-43 378) mg × h/L vs 18 262 (range, 9628-27 507) mg × h/L (P < .001). Controlling for age, sex, and disease severity, an increase of 5000 units in AUC0-28 was associated with lower odds of mortality at day 28 (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35-0.79]; P = .002). For an AUC0-28 of 19 400 mg × h/L or less, there was a higher probability of recovery at day 28 (hazard ratio, 2.63 [95% CI, 1.70-4.08] for every 5000-unit increase; P < .001). Controlling for age, sex, and disease severity, every 5000-unit increase in AUC0-28 was also associated with lower odds of a composite safety event at 28 days (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.63]; P < .001). Using the dosing regimen studied in the ACTIV-1 IM trial, 121 of the 395 patients (30.6%) would not achieve an abatacept exposure of at least 19 400 mg × h/L, particularly at the extremes of body weight. Using a modified, higher-dose regimen, only 12 patients (3.0%) would not achieve the hypothesized target abatacept exposure. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients who were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and achieved higher projected abatacept exposure had reduced mortality and a higher probability of recovery with fewer safety events. However, abatacept clearance was high in this population, and the current abatacept dosing (10 mg/kg intravenously with a maximum of 1000 mg) may not achieve optimal exposure in all patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Patients With Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The primary goals during acute heart failure (AHF) hospitalization are decongestion and guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization. Unlike diuretics or other GDMT, early dapagliflozin initiation could achieve both AHF goals. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to assess the diuretic efficacy and safety of early dapagliflozin initiation in AHF. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label study, 240 patients were randomized within 24 hours of hospital presentation for hypervolemic AHF to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or structured usual care with protocolized diuretic titration until day 5 or hospital discharge. The primary outcome, diuretic efficiency expressed as cumulative weight change per cumulative loop diuretic dose, was compared across treatment assignment using a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline weight. Secondary and safety outcomes were adjudicated by a blinded committee. RESULTS: For diuretic efficiency, there was no difference between dapagliflozin and usual care (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41-1.02; P = 0.06). Dapagliflozin was associated with reduced loop diuretic doses (560 mg [Q1-Q3: 260-1,150 mg] vs 800 mg [Q1-Q3: 380-1,715 mg]; P = 0.006) and fewer intravenous diuretic up-titrations (P ≤ 0.05) to achieve equivalent weight loss as usual care. Early dapagliflozin initiation did not increase diabetic, renal, or cardiovascular safety events. Dapagliflozin was associated with improved median 24-hour natriuresis (P = 0.03) and urine output (P = 0.005), expediting hospital discharge over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Early dapagliflozin during AHF hospitalization is safe and fulfills a component of GDMT optimization. Dapagliflozin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in weight-based diuretic efficiency but was associated with evidence for enhanced diuresis among patients with AHF. (Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Acute Heart Failure [DICTATE-AHF]; NCT04298229).

The Physical Abilities and Mobility Scale as a New Measure of Functional Progress in the PICU.

Assessing functional motor changes and their relationship to discharge needs in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) population is difficult given challenges quantifying small functional gains with current tools. Therefore, we compared the Physical Abilities and Mobility Scale (PAMS) to the Functional Status Scale (FSS) in PICU patients to assess correlation and differences and association with discharge needs. This study was a retrospective chart review of all patients (2-18 years old) admitted to the PICU and cardiac PICU for over 9 months who received early mobility services, including PAMS and FSS scoring. Correlation between scales, relationship of scores to disposition, and logistic regression model of changes in PAMS in relation to disposition were determined. Data were obtained for 122 patients. PAMS and FSS scores strongly negatively correlated (Spearman's ρ = - 0.85), but with a nonlinear relationship, as the PAMS more readily differentiated among patients with higher functional status. The median FSS at discharge was 12.5 for those recommended an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) ( n = 24), versus 9 for those recommended discharge home ( n = 83, Δ 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-6, around one-tenth of FSS scale). The corresponding median PAMS were 42 and 66 (Δ 24, 95% CI: 10-30, one-fourth of PAMS scale). Although not statistically significant, a logistic regression model was consistent with patients who showed modest change in PAMS across hospitalization but persistent deficits (PAMS < 60) were more likely to be recommended an IRF. The PAMS correlates to the FSS, but appears more sensitive to small functional changes, especially in higher functioning patients. It may be useful in prognosticating discharge needs.

Trends in use of composite endpoints in clinical trials: A comparison between acute heart failure trials and COVID-19 trials.

Composite endpoints can encode multiple pieces of information and are increasingly adopted in clinical trials. Advocacy for using composite endpoints began decades ago in cardiovascular trials, leading to incorporation of patient-oriented outcomes and consideration of a hierarchical ranking system. The use of composite endpoints in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) trials has evolved similarly. We conducted a literature review to investigate the use of composite endpoints in acute heart failure and COVID-19 clinical trials. The results showed more frequent use of patient-oriented outcomes and ordinal composite endpoints in COVID-19 trials, which might be driven by global consensus on a set of common outcome measures.

Effect of a Co-Located Bridging Recovery Initiative on Hospital Length of Stay Among Patients With Opioid Use Disorder: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Co-located bridge clinics aim to facilitate a timely transition to outpatient care for inpatients with opioid use disorder (OUD); however, their effect on hospital length of stay (LOS) and postdischarge outcomes remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a co-located bridge clinic on hospital LOS among inpatients with OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel-group randomized clinical trial recruited 335 adult inpatients with OUD seen by an addiction consultation service and without an existing outpatient clinician to provide medication for OUD (MOUD) between November 25, 2019, and September 28, 2021, at a tertiary care hospital affiliated with a large academic medical center and its bridge clinic. Intervention: The bridge clinic included enhanced case management before and after hospital discharge, MOUD prescription, and referral to a co-located bridge clinic. Usual care included MOUD prescription and referrals to community health care professionals who provided MOUD. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the index admission LOS. Secondary outcomes, assessed at 16 weeks, were linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD, MOUD refills, same-center emergency department (ED) and hospital use, recurrent opioid use, quality of life (measured by the Schwartz Outcome Scale-10), overdose, mortality, and cost. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Of 335 participants recruited (167 randomized to the bridge clinic and 168 to usual care), the median age was 38.0 years (IQR, 31.9-45.7 years), and 194 (57.9%) were male. The median LOS did not differ between arms (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.65-1.37]; P = .74). At the 16-week follow-up, participants referred to the bridge clinic had fewer hospital-free days (AOR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.92]), more readmissions (AOR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.25-3.76]), and higher care costs (AOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.51-3.35]), with no differences in ED visits (AOR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.68-1.94]) or deaths (AOR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.08-2.72]) compared with those receiving usual care. Follow-up calls were completed for 88 participants (26.3%). Participants referred to the bridge clinic were more likely to receive linkage to health care professionals who provided MOUD (AOR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.32-4.26]) and have more MOUD refills (AOR, 6.17 [95% CI, 3.69-10.30]) and less likely to experience an overdose (AOR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.03-0.41]). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that among inpatients with OUD, bridge clinic referrals did not improve hospital LOS. Referrals may improve outpatient metrics but with higher resource use and expenditure. Bending the cost curve may require broader community and regional partnerships. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04084392.

Association between weight-for-length percentile and ICU length of stay in patients with a single ventricle undergoing bidirectional Glenn repair: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Poor weight gain has been identified as an independent risk factor for increased surgical morbidity and mortality for patients with single-ventricle physiology undergoing staged surgical palliation. Conversely, excessive weight gain has also emerged as an independent risk factor predicting increased morbidity and mortality in a single-center study. Given this novel single-center concept, we investigated the impact of excessive weight on patients with single-ventricle physiology undergoing bidirectional Glenn palliation in a multicenter study model. METHODS: Patients from the Pediatric Heart Network Single Ventricle Reconstruction Trial (n = 387) were analyzed in a retrospective cohort study examining the independent effect of weight percentile on intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and ventilator days. Locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) regression was used to plot weight-for-length (WFL) percentiles by ICU LOS and ventilator days. Unadjusted and adjusted ordinal regression was used to model ICU LOS and ventilator days. RESULTS: Scatterplots and LOESS regression curves demonstrated increasing ICU LOS and ventilator days for increasing WFL percentiles. Unadjusted ordinal regression analysis of ICU LOS demonstrated a trend of increasing ICU LOS for increasing WFL percentiles that was not statistically significant (P = 0.11). A similar trend was demonstrated in adjusted ordinal regression that was not statistically significant (P = 0.48). Unadjusted and adjusted ordinal regression analysis of ventilator days did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Excessive weight gain has a clinically relevant but not statistically significant association with increased ICU LOS and ventilator days for those patients in the >90th WFL percentile for age.

Peer review of clinical and translational research manuscripts: Perspectives from statistical collaborators.

Research articles in the clinical and translational science literature commonly use quantitative data to inform evaluation of interventions, learn about the etiology of disease, or develop methods for diagnostic testing or risk prediction of future events. The peer review process must evaluate the methodology used therein, including use of quantitative statistical methods. In this manuscript, we provide guidance for peer reviewers tasked with assessing quantitative methodology, intended to complement guidelines and recommendations that exist for manuscript authors. We describe components of clinical and translational science research manuscripts that require assessment including study design and hypothesis evaluation, sampling and data acquisition, interventions (for studies that include an intervention), measurement of data, statistical analysis methods, presentation of the study results, and interpretation of the study results. For each component, we describe what reviewers should look for and assess; how reviewers should provide helpful comments for fixable errors or omissions; and how reviewers should communicate uncorrectable and irreparable errors. We then discuss the critical concepts of transparency and acceptance/revision guidelines when communicating with responsible journal editors.

Robotic versus Electromagnetic bronchoscopy for pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT: the RELIANT pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy has recently emerged as an alternative to electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy for the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions. While robotic-assisted bronchoscopy is proposed to have several advantages, such as an easier learning curve, it is unclear if it has comparable diagnostic utility as electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. METHODS: Robotic versus Electromagnetic bronchoscopy for pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT (RELIANT) is an investigator-initiated, single-center, open label, noninferiority, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in two operating rooms at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Each operating room (OR) is assigned to either robotic-assisted or electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy each morning, with each OR day considered one cluster. All patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy for evaluation of a peripheral pulmonary lesion in one of the two operating rooms are eligible. Schedulers, patients, and proceduralists are blinded to daily group allocations until randomization is revealed for each operating room each morning. The primary endpoint is the diagnostic yield defined as the proportion of cases yielding lesional tissue. Secondary and safety endpoints include procedure duration and procedural complications. Enrolment began on March 6, 2023, and will continue until 202 clusters have been accrued, with expected enrolment of approximately 400 patients by the time of completion in March of 2024. DISCUSSION: RELIANT is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will compare the diagnostic yield of the two most commonly used bronchoscopic approaches for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions. This will be the first known cluster randomized pragmatic trial in the interventional pulmonology field and the first randomized controlled trial of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT05705544) on January 30, 2023.

Public Perceptions and Informational Needs Regarding Surgical Residents.

OBJECTIVE: Identify what topics are of most interest to patients regarding surgical residents. DESIGN: Survey of general public describing a hypothetical surgery and then assessing comfort level with resident involvement in surgery, reactions to disclosure statements regarding resident involvement, and desires for additional information. This data was used to produce an amended statement about surgical residents and their involvement in a hypothetical surgery to determine the impact of increased information on participant comfort. SETTING: Online survey via Mechanical Turk. PARTICIPANTS: Our sample was broadly representative of the United States based on race and age, but with higher education level than United States census data. RESULTS: Using a combination of hierarchical clustering, weighted averages, and VAS scoring, questions that were most highly valued by participants were related to what the resident will be doing in the operation and the impact of resident involvement. Participants who had a past negative experience with residents assigned higher importance to all questions, even those that may be seen as not clinically relevant. Increasing the amount of proactively provided information did not have a significant effect on comfort (p = 0.219) when compared to our baseline statement, except with those who reported past negative experience with residents (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the majority of potential patients want to know specific details about the residents' skills, what they will be doing in their surgery, and the impact of their participation. Surgeons should be attuned to patients with past negative experiences, who may desire more information. Additional information alone may not be sufficient to comfort some patients, and future research should consider information delivery styles and interpersonal effects on patient comfort level.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Modifiable in-hospital factors for 12-month global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and depression symptoms in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify potentially modifiable in-hospital factors associated with global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months. METHODS: This was a multi-center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. The following in-hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in-person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve-month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA-Blind. Twelve-month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively. FINDINGS: Two hundred three patients completed the 12-month follow-up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA-Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12-month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12-month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85). CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long-term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms).

Rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation in the veterans health administration: a qualitative study.

Introduction: To assess healthcare professionals' perceptions of rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) setting through a series of one-on-one interviews with healthcare team members. Methods: Based on measures developed using Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM), we conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews with VHA healthcare team members at 10 Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) between December 2020 and September 2021. An iterative inductive and deductive approach was used for qualitative analysis of interview data, resulting in the development of a conceptual model to depict rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation. Results: A total of 30 interviews were completed among staff, providers, and lung cancer screening program directors and a conceptual model of rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation was developed. Major themes were categorized within institutional and patient environments. Within the institutional environment, participants identified systems-level (patient communication, resource availability, workload), provider-level (attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, skills and capabilities), and external (regional and national networks, incentives) barriers to and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation. Within the patient environment, participants revealed patient-level (modifiable vulnerabilities) barriers and facilitators as well as ecological modifiers (community) that influence screening behavior. Discussion: Understanding rural barriers to and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation as perceived by healthcare team members points to opportunities and approaches for improving lung cancer screening reach, implementation and effectiveness in VHA rural settings.