Sustained Clinical Benefits of Spiration Valve System in Patients with Severe Emphysema: 24-Month Follow-Up of EMPROVE.

Rationale: Follow-up of patients with emphysema treated with endobronchial valves is limited to 3-12 months after treatment in prior reports. To date, no comparative data exist between treatment and control subjects with a longer follow-up. Objectives: To assess the durability of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema over a 24-month period. Methods: EMPROVE, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, presents a rigorous comparison between treatment and control groups for up to 24 months. Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures were assessed. Results: A significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was maintained at 24 months in the SVS treatment group versus the control group. Similarly, significant improvements were maintained in several QOL measures, including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the COPD Assessment Test. Patients in the SVS treatment group experienced significantly less dyspnea than those in the control group, as indicated by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score. Adverse events at 24 months did not significantly differ between the SVS treatment and control groups. Acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 13.7% (14 of 102) and 15.6% (7 of 45), respectively. Pneumothorax rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 1.0% (1 of 102) and 0.0% (0 of 45), respectively. Conclusions: SVS treatment resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful durable improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and QOL, as well as a statistically significant reduction in dyspnea, for at least 24 months while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

A New Global Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods: A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results: The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ⩾30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:FiO2 ⩽ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ⩽97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions: We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.

CASCADIA: a prospective community-based study protocol for assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in children and adults using a remote nasal swab collection and web-based survey design.

INTRODUCTION: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were first approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in late 2020 for adults, authorisation for young children 6 months to <5 years of age did not occur until 2022. These authorisations were based on clinical trials, understanding real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the setting of emerging variants is critical. The primary goal of this study is to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 VE against infection among children aged >6 months and adults aged <50 years. METHODS: CASCADIA is a 4-year community-based prospective study of SARS-CoV-2 VE among 3500 adults and paediatric populations aged 6 months to 49 years in Oregon and Washington, USA. At enrolment and regular intervals, participants complete a sociodemographic questionnaire. Individuals provide a blood sample at enrolment and annually thereafter, with optional blood draws every 6 months and after infection and vaccination. Participants complete weekly self-collection of anterior nasal swabs and symptom questionnaires. Swabs are tested for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens by reverse transcription-PCR, with results of selected pathogens returned to participants; nasal swabs with SARS-CoV-2 detected will undergo whole genome sequencing. Participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 undergo serial swab collection every 3 days for 21 days. Serum samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibody by binding and neutralisation assays. ANALYSIS: The primary outcome is SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cox regression models will be used to estimate the incidence rate ratio associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among the paediatric and adult population, controlling for demographic factors and other potential confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All study materials including the protocol, consent forms, data collection instruments, participant communication and recruitment materials, were approved by the Kaiser Permanente Interregional Institutional Review Board, the IRB of record for the study. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations, participant newsletters and appropriate general news media.

Evaluating Demographic Representation in Clinical Trials: Use of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment Trial (ACTT) as a Test Case.

Background: Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods: We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results: US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions: Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Emotional Distress, Anxiety, and General Health Status in Patients With Newly Identified Small Pulmonary Nodules: Results From the Watch the Spot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules. RESEARCH QUESTION: How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex. INTERPRETATION: Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Differences in US Regional Healthcare Allocation Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals faced unprecedented scarcity of resources without parallel in modern times during the COVID-19 pandemic. This scarcity led healthcare systems and states to develop or modify scarce resource allocation guidelines that could be implemented during "crisis standards of care" (CSC). CSC describes a significant change in healthcare operations and the level of care provided during a public health emergency. OBJECTIVE: Our study provides a comprehensive examination of the latest CSC guidelines in the western region of the USA, where Alaska and Idaho declared CSC, focusing on ethical issues and health disparities. DESIGN: Mixed-methods survey study of physicians and/or ethicists and review of healthcare system and state allocation guidelines. PARTICIPANTS: Ten physicians and/or ethicists who participated in scarce resource allocation guideline development from seven healthcare systems or three state-appointed committees from the western region of the USA including Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and California. RESULTS: All sites surveyed developed allocation guidelines, but only four (40%) were operationalized either statewide or for specific scarce resources. Most guidelines included comorbidities (70%), and half included adjustments for socioeconomic disadvantage (50%), while only one included specific priority groups (10%). Allocation tiebreakers included the life cycle principle and random number generators. Six guidelines evolved over time, removing restrictions such as age, severity of illness, and comorbidities. Additional palliative care (20%) and ethics (50%) resources were planned by some guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Allocation guidelines are essential to support clinicians during public health emergencies; however, significant deficits and differences in guidelines were identified that may perpetuate structural inequities and racism. While a universal triage protocol that is equally accepted by all communities is unlikely, the lack of regional agreement on standards with justification and transparency has the potential to erode public trust and perpetuate inequity.

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, V116, in healthy adults: phase 1/2, randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, multicentre, US-based trial.

BACKGROUND: A pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) specifically focused on serotypes associated with adult residual disease burden is urgently needed. We aimed to assess V116, an investigational 21-valent PCV, that contains pneumococcal polysaccharides (PnPs), which account for 74-94% of invasive pneumococcal disease in adults aged 65 years or older. METHODS: We did a phase 1/2, randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, multicentre, non-inferiority and superiority trial. The phase 1 study was done at two clinical sites in the USA, and the phase 2 study was done in 18 clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were healthy adults with or without chronic medical conditions assessed as stable, aged 18-49 years in the phase 1 trial and aged 50 years or older in the phase 2 trial. Participants were excluded if they had a history of invasive pneumococcal disease or other culture-positive pneumococcal disease within the past 3 years, known hypersensitivity to a vaccine component, known or suspected impairment of immunological function, were pregnant or were breastfeeding, or had previously received any pneumococcal vaccine. Participants had to abstain from sexual activity or use protocol approved contraception. All participants were centrally randomly assigned to a vaccine group using an interactive response technology system. Participants and investigators were masked to group assignment. In phase 1, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a single dose of V116-1 (2 µg per pneumococcal polysaccharide [PnP] per 0·5 mL) or V116-2 (4 µg per PnP per 1·0 mL) or the 23-valent unconjugated PnP vaccine, PPSV23 (25 µg per PnP per 0·5 mL). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one dose of V116 (4 µg per PnP per 1·0 mL) or PPSV23 (25 µg per PnP per 0·5 mL), stratified by age. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants who received study vaccine; immunogenicity analyses were per protocol. For both phases, the primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with solicited injection-site adverse events and solicited systemic adverse events up to day 5 after vaccination and the proportion of participants with vaccine-related serious adverse events to 6 months after vaccination. In phase 2, primary immunogenicity outcomes were to test non-inferiority of V116 compared with PPSV23 as measured by serotype-specific opsonophagocytic antibody geometric mean titres (OPA-GMT) ratios for the serotypes common to the two vaccines at 30 days after vaccination (using a 0·33 margin) and to test superiority of V116 compared with PPSV23 as measured by serotype-specific OPA-GMT ratios for the serotypes unique to V116 at 30 days after vaccination (using a 1·0 margin). This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04168190. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6 and 26, 2019, 92 volunteers were screened and 90 (98%) enrolled for phase 1 (59 [66%] women; 31 [34%] men); 30 participants were assigned to each group and received study vaccine. 30 (100%) participants in the V116-1 group, 29 (97%) in the V116-2 group, and 30 (100%) participants in the PPSV23 group were included in the per-protocol immunogenicity evaluation. From Sept 23, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021, 527 volunteers were screened, and 510 (97%) participants were enrolled in the phase 2 trial. 508 participants (>99%; 254 [100%] of 254 participants randomly assigned to the V116 group and 254 [99%] of 256 randomly assigned to PPSV23 group) received study vaccine (281 [55%] women; 227 [45%] men). 252 (99%) of 254 of participants in the V116 group and 254 (99%) of 256 participants in the PPSV23 group were included in the primary immunogenicity analyses. There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events or vaccine-related deaths in either study phase. In both phases, the most common solicited injection site adverse event was injection site pain (phase 1 22 [73%] participants in V116-1 group, 23 [77%] participants in V116-2 group, and 17 [57%] participants in the PPSV23 group; phase 2 118 [46%] of 254 participants in the V116 group and 96 [38%] of 254 in the PPSV23 group]. The most common solicited systemic adverse events in phase 1 was fatigue (eight [27%] participants in the V116-1 group, eight [27%] participants in the V116-2 group, and five [17%] participants in PPSV23 group) and myalgia (eight [27%] participants in the V116-1 group, nine (30%) participants in the V116-2 group, and four (13%) participants in the PPSV23 group]. In phase 2, the most frequently reported solicited systemic adverse event was fatigue (49 [19%] participants in V116 group, and 31 [12%] participants in PPSV23 group). In both phases, most of the solicited adverse events in all vaccine groups were mild and of short duration (≤3 days). V116 met non-inferiority criteria compared with PPSV23 for the 12 shared serotypes and met superiority criteria compared to PPSV23 for the nine unique serotypes. INTERPRETATION: V116 was well tolerated with a safety profile generally similar to PPSV23; consistent with licensed pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. Functional OPA antibodies were induced to all V116 vaccine serotypes. The vaccine was non-inferior to PPSV23 for the 12 serotypes common to both vaccines and superior to PPSV23 for the nine unique serotypes in V116. Our findings support the development of V116 for prevention of pneumococcal disease in adults. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Web-Based Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Well-being: Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). METHODS: Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. RESULTS: We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Association Between Financial Distress with Patient and Caregiver Outcomes in Home-Based Palliative Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness often causes financial hardship for patients and families. Home-based palliative care (HBPC) may partly address this. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence and characteristics of patients and family caregivers with high financial distress at HBPC admission and examine the relationship between financial distress and patient and caregiver outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for this cohort study were drawn from a pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial testing two models of HBPC in Kaiser Permanente. We included 779 patients and 438 caregivers from January 2019 to January 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Financial distress at admission to HBPC was measured using a global question (0-10-point scale: none=0; mild=1-5; moderate/severe=6+). Patient- (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, distress thermometer, PROMIS-10) and caregiver (Preparedness for Caregiving, Zarit-12 Burden, PROMIS-10)-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and 1 month. Hospital utilization was captured using electronic medical records and claims. Mixed-effects adjusted models assessed survey measures and a proportional hazard competing risk model assessed hospital utilization. RESULTS: Half of the patients reported some level of financial distress with younger patients more likely to have moderate/severe financial distress. Patients with moderate/severe financial distress at HBPC admission reported worse symptoms, general distress, and quality of life (QoL), and caregivers reported worse preparedness, burden, and QoL (all, p<.001). Compared to patients with no financial distress, moderate/severe financial distress patients had more social work contacts, improved symptom burden at 1 month (ESAS total score: -4.39; 95% CI: -7.61, -1.17; p<.01), and no increase in hospital-based utilization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.40; p=.41); their caregivers had improved PROMIS-10 mental scores (+2.68; 95% CI: 0.20, 5.16; p=.03). No other group differences were evident in the caregiver preparedness, burden, and physical QoL change scores. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance and need for routine assessments of financial distress and for provision of social supports required to help families receiving palliative care services.

Performance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Large Pragmatic Trial of Home-Based Palliative Care (HomePal): Methodological and Practical Considerations for Embedded Patient-Centered Design.

Background: The research enterprise has embraced patient centeredness in embedded efficient pragmatic trials, but limited data exist on using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected as part of usual clinical care for research. Objectives: We sought to assess the performance of different assessment methods for obtaining PROs in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial (HomePal study) designed to compare two models of home-based palliative care (HBPC). Design: Descriptive analytics, comparative trends, and psychometric performance of PROs collected in the HomePal study; measures included Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), PROMIS-10, and others administered at baseline, 1, and 6 months. Setting/Subjects: HomePal was conducted in the Southern California and Northwest Kaiser Permanente regions in the United States; subjects were patients receiving HBPC and their caregivers. Measurements: We specifically compared ESAS obtained by research staff with those obtained by clinical HBPC nurses at the time of HBPC enrollment. We also compared ESAS completed by patients versus if done or assisted by a caregiver (proxy). Results: We enrolled 3533 patients and had 2205 ESAS measurements that met the criteria for analysis at baseline and 1447 at the one-month follow-up assessment. Research staff-obtained ESAS at admission to HBPC was higher overall (indicating more symptoms) than the clinically collected measure whether symptoms were reported by patients (31.7 ± 15.4 vs. 26.0 ± 13.4) or by proxies (36.9 ± 15.6 vs. 26.5 ± 13.5). These differences persisted with follow-up ESAS measures. Conclusions: We identified significant variability in PRO responses between different surveyors and whether proxy interaction was needed suggesting complex issues around PRO measure performance for pragmatic embedded trials. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694431.

Assessing the concurrent validity of days alive and at home metric.

BACKGROUND: Most patients living with serious illness value spending time at home. Emerging data suggest that days alive and at home (DAH) may be a useful metric, however more research is needed. We aimed to assess the concurrent validity of DAH with respect to clinically significant changes in patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: We drew data from a study that compared two models of home-based palliative care among seriously ill patients and their caregivers in two Kaiser Permanente regions (Southern California and Northwest). We included participants aged 18 years or older (n = 3533) and corresponding caregivers (n = 463). We categorized patients and caregivers into three groups based on whether symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, ESAS) or caregiving preparedness (Preparedness for Caregiving Scale, CPS) showed improvements, deterioration, or no change from baseline to 1 month later. We measured DAH across four time windows: 30, 60, 90, and 180 days, after admission to home palliative care. We used two-way ANOVA to compare DAH across the PRO groups. RESULTS: Adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that DAH was highest for patients whose ESAS scores improved or did not change compared with those with worsening symptoms. Although the mean differences ranged from less than a day to about 3 weeks, none exceeded 0.3 standard deviations. ESAS change scores had weak negative correlations (r = -0.11 to -0.21) with DAH measures. CPS change scores also showed weak, positive correlations (r = 0.23-0.24) with DAH measures. CONCLUSION: DAH measures are associated, albeit weakly, with clinically important improvement or maintenance of patient symptom burden in a diverse, seriously ill population.

Developing a patient-driven chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) research agenda in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: To document a generalizable process for developing a patient-prioritized chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) research agenda and to provide an overview of domains that were developed in response to people living with COPD and caregivers' suggestions for research. METHODS: Adults with COPD and caregivers who are members of the COPD Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) provided suggestions for COPD-related research through a self-administered, online survey. These responses were analyzed with a content analysis approach: domains for categorizing all survey responses were created, then all responses were categorized independently by a group of researchers, then these categorizations were adjudicated, and finally a density map was created that represented the number of responses in each of the domains. RESULTS: At the time of analysis, 6157 adults had fully completed the baseline survey. Survey responses were categorized across seven domains as follows: 22.5% of all responses fell into the domain family/social/community research, 20.8% of all responses fell into the domain well-being, 15% of all responses fell into the domain curative research, 14.6% of all responses fell into the domain biomedical therapies, 10.5% of all responses fell into the domain policy concerns, 6% of all responses fell into the domain holistic therapies and 10.7% of all responses fell into the domain ambiguous comments that could not be translated into concrete research topics. CONCLUSION: Using qualitative open-ended survey responses from the COPD PPRN registrants, we were able to identify six key domains of research about COPD that are considered most important by patients. These domains differ in content from prior scientist-led efforts to develop priorities for COPD research, demonstrating the ongoing importance of involving patients and their caregivers in determining research priorities. The results suggest the field can more closely align research efforts to patient priorities by considering the identified domains.

The COPD Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) asked adults with COPD and their caregivers to suggest areas for future research on COPD. Researchers analyzed 7336 survey responses and created six research areas to reflect their suggestions: (1) family/social/community research, (2) well-being, (3) research on a cure for COPD, (4) new drugs and treatments, (5) policy concerns, and (6) natural therapies. Several research topics patients and their caregivers identified as important have received little attention from researchers in the past and could be valuable topics for researchers to explore.

Continuity of Care Assessment Within a Vertically Integrated Care Management Organization Before and After COPD-Related Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: There is currently little research describing patient experience and continuity of care immediately prior, during, and following an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This analysis examined clinical characteristics, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)­related medication patterns and outpatient visits before and after an AECOPD. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used electronic health records, medical claims, and pharmacy dispensing data for patients within the Kaiser Permanente Northwest Health System. Patients with ≥1 AECOPD between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 were identified. The most recent AECOPD was considered the index date. An AECOPD was defined as an inpatient hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of COPD, or respiratory failure with a secondary diagnosis of COPD, or an outpatient visit with a primary diagnosis of COPD and dispensing of respiratory-related antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids ±5 days of the visit. Eligible patients were: ≥40 years old; ≥2 encounters within 12 months of each other or ≥1 hospitalization with primary or secondary COPD diagnosis, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema prior to index; and continuously enrolled ±90 days relative to index. COPD-related inhaled maintenance medication, rescue inhalers, oral corticosteroid use, and ambulatory visits were assessed 90-days pre- and post-index. RESULTS: There were 2829 patients included (mean [standard deviation] age: 69.0 [10.5] years) who had an AECOPD (7% severe; 93% moderate). The percentage of patients on inhaled maintenance therapy increased from 60.6% pre-AECOPD to 68.8% post-AECOPD and increased from 60.0% to 87.4% among patients who experienced a severe AECOPD. COPD-related ambulatory visits increased more than four-fold for primary care and more than doubled for pulmonologist visits in the post-AECOPD period. CONCLUSION: The low proportion of patients observed with changes to controller and rescue medication (particularly following a moderate AECOPD), yet higher utilization of COPD-related ambulatory visits before and after an AECOPD suggests that there is opportunity to improve pharmacotherapy management.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Self-reported COPD Medication Use and Adherence in the COPD Foundation Patient- Powered Registry Network.

PURPOSE: Pharmacotherapy is one cornerstone of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) management. Published U.S. data seldom includes patient-reported COPD medication use and adherence. We add this patient perspective to the commonly reported administrative prescribing and fill data. METHODS: This survey study used inhaler and nebulizer pictures and lists of oral COPD medications to query members of the COPD Foundation Patient-Powered Research Network, a national self-reported online registry. Medications used, adherence, inhaler education, cost concerns, previous exacerbations, and COPD Assessment Test scores were assessed and summarized using simple descriptive statistics and hazard ratios controlling for age, gender, and disease burden. RESULTS: Respondents mean age was 68 years, 60% were women, >69% with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores >15, and >50% reported 2 or more exacerbations in the past 12 months. Overall, >98% used one or more inhaled COPD medications, 7.6% rescue inhaler only, 17.8% used long-acting bronchodilator only therapy (11.1% dual), and 72.8% using corticosteroid therapies, including 53% triple therapy. Nebulizers were used by 59.4% and 34.8% use oral COPD medications. Reported adherence rates were high (80.1%), but 41% reported trouble paying for medications, with 20.1% reported missing medications due to cost. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, COPD had a high burden with >50% of respondents using triple therapy, and one in eight maintenance oral corticosteroids. Self-reported adherence was high, but with significant cost concerns reported resulting in missed medications.