Pediatric Death After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate literature on the dying process in children after withdrawal of life sustaining measures (WLSM) in the PICU. We focused on the physiology of dying, prediction of time to death, impact of time to death, and uncertainty of the dying process on families, healthcare workers, and organ donation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that discussed the dying process after WLSM in the PICU, with no date or study type restrictions. We excluded studies focused exclusively on adult or neonatal populations, children outside the PICU, or on organ donation or adult/pediatric studies where pediatric data could not be isolated. DATA EXTRACTION: Inductive qualitative content analysis was performed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six thousand two hundred twenty-five studies were screened and 24 included. Results were grouped into four categories: dying process, perspectives of healthcare professionals and family, WLSM and organ donation, and recommendations for future research. Few tools exist to predict time to death after WLSM in children. Most deaths after WLSM occur within 1 hour and during this process, healthcare providers must offer support to families regarding logistics, medications, and expectations. Providers describe the unpredictability of the dying process as emotionally challenging and stressful for family members and staff; however, no reports of families discussing the impact of time to death prediction were found. The unpredictability of death after WLSM makes families less likely to pursue donation. Future research priorities include developing death prediction tools of tools, provider and parental decision-making, and interventions to improve end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: The dying process in children is poorly understood and understudied. This knowledge gap leaves families in a vulnerable position and the clinical team without the necessary tools to support patients, families, or themselves. Improving time to death prediction after WLSM may improve care provision and enable identification of potential organ donors.

Chronic Active Antibody-mediated Rejection: Opportunity to Determine the Role of Interleukin-6 Blockade.

Chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (caAMR) is arguably the most important cause of late kidney allograft failure. However, there are no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatments for acute or chronic AMR and there is no consensus on effective treatment. Many trials in transplantation have failed because of slow and/or inadequate enrollment, and no new agent has been approved by the FDA for transplantation in over a decade. Several lines of evidence suggest that interleukin-6 is an important driver of AMR, and clazakizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that neutralizes interleukin-6, has shown promising results in phase 2 studies. The IMAGINE trial (Interleukin-6 Blockade Modifying Antibody-mediated Graft Injury and Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Decline) (NCT03744910) is the first to be considered by the FDA using a reasonably likely surrogate endpoint (slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate decline >1 y) for accelerated approval and is the only ongoing clinical trial for the treatment of chronic rejection. This trial offers us the opportunity to advance the care for our patients in need, and this article is a call to action for all transplant providers caring for patients with caAMR.

Organ Donation in Canadian PICUs: A Cross-Sectional Survey, 2021-2022.

OBJECTIVES: To understand contemporary pediatric organ donation programs in Canadian PICUs, including: policies and practices, data collection and reporting, and system and process barriers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey carried out 2021-2022. SETTING: Canadian PICUs affiliated with a donor physician network. SUBJECTS: Pediatric intensivists identified as the donation program lead, or most knowledgeable about donation for their institution. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A 19-item survey was developed through collaboration with stakeholders from the organ donation and transplantation community within Canada. Domains and items were generated and reduced iteratively during an in-person workshop. Pretesting and pilot testing were completed to ensure readability, flow, clinical sensibility, and construct validity. Fifteen of 16 (94%) invited Canadian PICUs from seven provinces completed the survey representing 88% (15/18) of all noncardiac Canadian PICUs. Surveys were completed between June 2021 and September 2022. All units support donation after death by neurologic criteria (DNC); 14 of 15 indicated donation policies were in place and 1 of 15 indicated no policy but the ability to facilitate donation. Thirteen of 15 units (87%) support donation after death by circulatory criteria (DCC) with policies in place, with 11 of 13 of these indicating routine support of donation opportunities. The majority (13/15) of units identified a donation champion. Of the 16 identified champions across these centers, 13 were physicians and were registered nurses or nurse practitioners. Eight of 13 units (62%) with donation champions had positions supported financially, of which 5 units came from the Organ Donation Organization and the other 3 came from the provincial health authority. Finally, only 3 of 15 PICU donation programs have a pediatric donation committee with family involvement. Variability exists in identification (including determination of death practices), referral, and approach for donation between units. CONCLUSIONS: Although all Canadian PICUs support donation after DNC donation, and most support donation after DCC, variability exists in the identification, referral, and approach of potential donors. There is a notable lack of family involvement in pediatric donation programs. There are many opportunities for standardization of PICU donation programs which may result in improved rates of pediatric organ donation in Canada.

A survey of pediatric intensive care unit clinician experience with restricted family presence during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Limiting family presence runs counter to the family-centred values of Canadian pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). This study explores how implementing and enforcing COVID-19-related restricted family presence (RFP) policies impacted PICU clinicians nationally. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey of Canadian PICU clinicians to assess experience and opinions of restrictions, moral distress (Moral Distress Thermometer, range 0-10), and mental health impacts (Impact of Event Scale [IES], range 0-75 and attributable stress [five-point Likert scale]). For analysis, we used descriptive statistics, multivariate regression modelling, and a general inductive approach for free text. RESULTS: Representing 17/19 Canadian PICUs, 368 of 388 respondents (94%) experienced RFP policies and were predominantly female (333/368, 91%), English speaking (338/368, 92%), and nurses (240/368, 65%). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) reported moral distress score was 4.5 (2.4) and was associated with perceived differential impact on families. The mean (SD) total IES score was 29.7 (10.5), suggesting moderate traumatic stress with 56% (176/317) reporting increased/significantly increased stress from restrictions related to separating families, denying access, and concern for family impacts. Incongruence between RFP policies/practices and PICU values was perceived by 66% of respondents (217/330). Most respondents (235/330, 71%) felt their opinions were not valued when implementing policies. Though respondents perceived that restrictions were implemented for the benefit of clinicians (252/332, 76%) and to protect families (236/315, 75%), 57% (188/332) disagreed that their RFP experience was mainly positive. CONCLUSION: Pediatric intensive care unit-based RFP rules, largely designed and implemented without bedside clinician input, caused increased psychological burden for clinicians, characterized as moderate moral distress and trauma triggered by perceived impacts on families.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Limiter la présence de la famille va à l'encontre des valeurs centrées sur la famille des unités de soins intensifs pédiatriques (USIP) canadiennes. Cette étude explore comment la mise en œuvre et l'application des politiques de restriction de la présence familiale liées à la COVID-19 ont eu une incidence sur les cliniciennes et cliniciens des USIP à l'échelle nationale. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené un sondage transversal, en ligne et auto-administré auprès des cliniciens et cliniciennes des USIP canadiennes afin d'évaluer leur expérience et opinions sur les restrictions, la détresse morale (thermomètre de détresse morale, intervalle de 0 à 10) et les impacts sur la santé mentale (échelle d'impact des événements [EIE], intervalle de 0 à 75, et le stress qui peut y être attribué [échelle de Likert à cinq points]). Pour l'analyse, nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives, une modélisation de régression multivariée et une analyse inductive générale pour le texte libre. RéSULTATS: Représentant 17/19 USIP canadiennes, 368 des 388 personnes répondantes (94 %) ont vécu des politiques de restriction de la présence familiale et étaient principalement des femmes (333/368, 91 %), anglophones (338/368, 92 %) et infirmières (240/368, 65 %). Le score moyen (écart type [ET]) rapporté de détresse morale était de 4,5 (2,4) et était associé à l'impact différentiel perçu sur les familles. Le score moyen (ET) total de l'EIE était de 29,7 (10,5), ce qui suggère un stress traumatique modéré, 56 % (176/317) des personnes répondantes déclarant une augmentation ou une augmentation significative du stress associé aux restrictions liées à la séparation des familles, au refus d'accès et à la préoccupation pour les impacts familiaux. L'incongruité entre les politiques et les pratiques de restriction des visites familiales et les valeurs des USIP était perçue par 66 % des personnes répondantes (217/330). La plupart (235/330, 71 %) estimaient que leurs opinions n'étaient pas prises en compte lors de la mise en œuvre de politiques. Bien que les répondant·es aient perçu que les restrictions avaient été mises en œuvre dans l'intérêt des cliniciens et cliniciennes (252/332, 76 %) et pour protéger les familles (236/315, 75 %), 57 % (188/332) n'étaient pas d'accord pour dire que leur expérience de la restriction des visites familiales était principalement positive. CONCLUSION: Les règles de restriction de la présence familiale dans les unités de soins intensifs pédiatriques, en grande partie conçues et mises en œuvre sans l'avis du personnel clinique au chevet des patient·es, ont entraîné une augmentation du fardeau psychologique pour le personnel clinique, caractérisée par une détresse morale modérée et un traumatisme déclenché par des répercussions perçues sur les familles.

A brain-based definition of death and criteria for its determination after arrest of circulation or neurologic function in Canada: a 2023 clinical practice guideline.

This 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline provides the biomedical definition of death based on permanent cessation of brain function that applies to all persons, as well as recommendations for death determination by circulatory criteria for potential organ donors and death determination by neurologic criteria for all mechanically ventilated patients regardless of organ donation potential. This Guideline is endorsed by the Canadian Critical Care Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation (representing the Canadian Neurological Society, Canadian Neurosurgical Society, Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists, Canadian Association of Child Neurology, Canadian Society of Neuroradiology, and Canadian Stroke Consortium), Canadian Blood Services, the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Nurse Practitioners Association of Canada, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society.

RéSUMé: Ces Lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2023 Lignes directrices de pratique clinique dicale du décès basée sur l'arrêt permanent de la fonction cérébrale qui s'applique à toute personne, ainsi que des recommandations pour la détermination du décès par des critères circulatoires pour des donneurs d'organes potentiels et des recommandations pour la détermination du décès par des critères neurologiques pour tous les patients sous ventilation mécanique, indépendamment de leur potentiel de donneur d'organes. Les présentes Lignes directrices sont approuvées par la Société canadienne de soins intensifs, l'Association médicale canadienne, l'Association canadienne des infirmiers/infirmières en soins intensifs, la Société canadienne des anesthésiologistes, la Fédération des sciences neurologiques du Canada (représentant la Société canadienne de neurologie, la Société canadienne de neurochirurgie, la Société canadienne de neurophysiologie clinique, l'Association canadienne de neurologie pédiatrique, la Société canadienne de neuroradiologie et le Consortium neurovasculaire canadien), la Société canadienne du sang, le Programme de recherche en don et transplantation du Canada, l'Association canadienne des médecins d'urgence, l'Association des infirmières et infirmiers praticiens du Canada, et la Société canadienne de soins intensifs cardiovasculaires (CANCARE) et la Société canadienne de pédiatrie.

Defining Pediatric Chronic Critical Illness: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Children with chronic critical illness (CCI) are hypothesized to be a high-risk patient population with persistent multiple organ dysfunction and functional morbidities resulting in recurrent or prolonged critical care; however, it is unclear how CCI should be defined. The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate the existing literature for case definitions of pediatric CCI and case definitions of prolonged PICU admission and to explore the methodologies used to derive these definitions. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from inception to March 3, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that provided a specific case definition for CCI or prolonged PICU admission. Crowdsourcing was used to screen citations independently and in duplicate. A machine-learning algorithm was developed and validated using 6,284 citations assessed in duplicate by trained crowd reviewers. A hybrid of crowdsourcing and machine-learning methods was used to complete the remaining citation screening. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted details of case definitions, study demographics, participant characteristics, and outcomes assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-seven studies were included. Twelve studies (18%) provided a definition for CCI that included concepts of PICU length of stay (n = 12), medical complexity or chronic conditions (n = 9), recurrent admissions (n = 9), technology dependence (n = 5), and uncertain prognosis (n = 1). Definitions were commonly referenced from another source (n = 6) or opinion-based (n = 5). The remaining 55 studies (82%) provided a definition for prolonged PICU admission, most frequently greater than or equal to 14 (n = 11) or greater than or equal to 28 days (n = 10). Most of these definitions were derived by investigator opinion (n = 24) or statistical method (n = 18). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric CCI has been variably defined with regard to the concepts of patient complexity and chronicity of critical illness. A consensus definition is needed to advance this emerging and important area of pediatric critical care research.

"We Aren't Meant to Go Through the Hardest Parts of Our Lives Alone": Family Experience With Restricted PICU Presence During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: PICUs across Canada restricted family presence (RFP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from allowing two or more family members to often only one family member at the bedside. The objective of this study was to describe the experiences and impact of RFP on families of critically ill children to inform future policy and practice. HYPOTHESIS: RFP policies negatively impacted families of PICU patients and caused moral distress. METHODS AND MODELS: National, cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey. Family members of children admitted to a Canadian PICU between March 2020 and February 2021 were invited to complete the survey. RFP-attributable distress was measured with a modified distress thermometer (0-10). Closed-ended questions were reported with descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression assessed factors associated with RFP-attributable distress. Open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of 250 respondents who experienced RFP, 124 (49.6%) were restricted to one family member at the bedside. The median amount of distress that families attributed to RFP policies was 6 (range: 0-10). Families described isolation, removal of supports, and perception of trauma related to RFP. Most families (183, 73.2%) felt that policies were enforced in a way that made them feel valued by PICU clinicians, which was associated with less RFP-attributable distress. Differential impact was seen where families with lower household income indicated higher RFP-attributable distress score (2.35; 95% CI, 0.53-4.17; p = 0.03). Most respondents suggested that future policies should allow at least two family members at the bedside. INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Families of children admitted to PICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic described increased distress, trauma, and removal of supports due to RFP policies. Vulnerable families showed an increased odds of higher distress. Healthcare professionals played an important role in mitigating distress. Allowance of at least two family members at the bedside should be considered for future policy.

Outcomes associated with family presence at the bedside of critically ill children in the pediatric intensive care unit: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify the outcomes of family presence at the bedside of critically ill children in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) that have been reported in the literature. INTRODUCTION: PICU admission is traumatic for critically ill children and their family members, and family presence may alleviate negative outcomes. Family presence may change with family member, patient, health care provider, and institutional circumstances. Prior to designing studies to assess the outcomes of family presence at the bedside, or to conducting a systematic review of the literature, a scoping review is needed to systematically identify and map the outcomes for stakeholders. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include literature addressing outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU on the patient, family members, and health care providers. Emotional, social, psychological, and physiological outcomes will be considered, including outcomes on the provision of PICU care. METHODS: A systematic search will be undertaken across four databases and several sources of gray literature. The review will not be restricted by language, and will be limited to sources published after 1960. The search strategy was designed using text words from titles and abstracts of relevant studies. Title and abstract screening, followed by full text assessment of sources against inclusion criteria, will be completed in duplicate. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the study team. Data will be presented in tabular format to address findings related to the review objectives.

Family presence in Canadian PICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods environmental scan of policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite their broad commitment to family-centred care, children's hospitals and associated pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) restricted family presence during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to describe family presence policies and practices in Canadian PICUs from March to May 2020, and their evolution by August to December 2020. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of family presence policies and restrictions in all 19 Canadian PICUs using 2 methods. We conducted a literature review of public-facing visitation policy documents in June 2020 using a standardized data extraction form. We also administered a cross-sectional survey of PICU leadership (managers and physician chiefs) between August and December 2020 by telephone or videoconferencing. We used inductive content analysis to code qualitative data, generating summative count data. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively. RESULTS: As part of the literature search, we collected 2 (12%) PICU-specific, 14 (82%) pediatric-specific and 1 (6%) hospital-wide visitation policy documents from the early pandemic. One policy document provided guidance on all of the policy elements sought; the number of enabled caregivers was not included in the documents for 7 of 19 units (37%). All 19 Canadian PICUs were represented among the 24 survey respondents (15 physician chiefs and 9 operations or clinical managers). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, all units allowed the presence of 2 or more family members. Early in the pandemic, reported practices limited the number of adult caregivers for patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection to 1 (n = 21/24, 88%) or 2 (n = 3/24, 12%); all units prohibited siblings. Some centres restricted caregivers from switching bedside presence with one another (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 16/23, 70%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 20/23, 87%); leaving their child's PICU room (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 1/24, 4%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 16/24, 67%); and joining in-person rounds (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 9/22, 41%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 17/22, 77%). All respondents endorsed policy exceptions during end-of-life care. Some reported policies and practices were adapted over the study period. INTERPRETATION: Early COVID-19-related family presence policies in Canadian PICUs varied among centres. Although some centres adapted policies and practices, this study revealed ongoing potential threats to family centred care at the mid-pandemic stage.

Comfort-holding in critically ill children: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To understand and summarize the breadth of knowledge on comfort-holding in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). SOURCES: This scoping review was conducted using PRISMA methodology. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. Search strategies were developed with a medical librarian and revised through a peer review of electronic search strategies. All databases were searched from inception to 14 April 2020. Only full-text articles available in English were included. All identified articles were reviewed independently and in duplicate using predetermined criteria. All study designs were eligible if they reported on comfort-holding in a PICU. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 13,326 studies identified, 13 were included. Comfort-holding was studied in the context of end-of-life care, developmental care, mobilization, and as a unique intervention. Comfort-holding is common during end-of-life care with 77.8% of children held, but rare during acute management (51% of children < three years, < 5% of children ≥ three years). Commonly reported outcomes included child outcomes (e.g., physiologic measurements), safety outcomes (e.g., accidental line removal), parent outcomes (e.g., psychological symptoms), and frequency of holding. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of literature on comfort-holding in PICUs. This scoping review identifies significant gaps in the literature, including assessment of child-based outcomes of comfort-holding or safety assessment of comfort-holding, and highlights core outcomes to consider in future evaluations of this intervention including child-based outcomes, parent-based outcomes, and safety of the intervention.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Comprendre et résumer l'étendue des connaissances sur la pratique des étreintes de réconfort dans les unités de soins intensifs pédiatriques (USIP). SOURCES: Cette étude de portée a été réalisée en utilisant la méthodologie PRISMA. Une recherche de la littérature a été menée dans les bases de données MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL et dans le registre Cochrane CENTRAL d'études contrôlées. Les stratégies de recherche ont été élaborées avec un bibliothécaire médical et révisées au moyen d'un examen par les pairs des stratégies de recherche électronique. Toutes les bases de données ont été passées en revue de leur création au 14 avril 2020. Seuls les articles en texte intégral disponibles en anglais ont été inclus. Tous les articles identifiés ont été révisés indépendamment et en double à l'aide de critères prédéterminés. Tous les types de plans d'étude étaient admissibles s'ils abordaient le thème des étreintes de réconfort dans une USIP. Les données ont été extraites indépendamment et en double. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Sur les 13 326 études identifiées, 13 ont été incluses. Les étreintes de réconfort ont été étudiées dans le contexte des soins de fin de vie, des soins développementaux, de la mobilisation et en tant qu'intervention unique. Les étreintes de réconfort sont une approche courante dans le cadre de soins de fin de vie, durant lesquels 77,8 % des enfants sont étreints, mais plus rares pendant la prise en charge aiguë (51 % des enfants < trois ans, < 5 % des enfants ≥ trois ans). Les résultats couramment rapportés comprenaient les issues pour les enfants (p. ex. mesures physiologiques), les issues en matière de sécurité (p. ex. retrait accidentel d'une ligne), les issues pour les parents (p. ex. symptômes psychologiques) et la fréquence des étreintes. CONCLUSION: Il n'existe que très peu de littérature s'intéressant aux étreintes de réconfort dans les USIP. Cette étude de portée identifie d'importantes lacunes dans la littérature, notamment l'évaluation des issues pour l'enfant suite à une étreinte de réconfort ou l'évaluation de la sécurité de telles étreintes, et met en évidence les issues principales dont il faudra tenir compte dans les évaluations futures de cette intervention, y compris les issues axées sur l'enfant, les issues basées sur les parents et la sécurité de l'intervention.

Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Japanese Patients with Asthma: A Long-Term (52-Week) Phase III Open-Label Study.

PURPOSE: The pivotal CAPTAIN study reported a favorable safety profile with once-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple combination of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma, some of whom were Japanese. Here, we evaluate the long-term (52 weeks) safety of FF/UMEC/VI in Japanese patients with asthma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a Phase III, 52-week, multicenter, non-comparator, non-randomized, open-label study (NCT03184987) in Japanese adults receiving maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA, with or without LAMA. At enrollment, patients were allocated to either FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg (Group 1) or 200/62.5/25mcg (Group 2). Patients in Group 1 could have their treatment stepped up to 200/62.5/25mcg at Week 24 if their Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7 score was >0.75. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Secondary endpoints included vital signs, electrocardiogram measurements, and clinical laboratory tests (biochemistry, hematology, urinalysis). Efficacy was assessed as "other" endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 111 Japanese patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Overall, 77 (69%) patients reported ≥1 AE (Group 1: n=30 [64%]; step-up group: n=7 [78%]; Group 2: n=40 [73%]). SAEs were reported for 1 (2.1%) and 2 (3.6%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. All SAEs were considered unrelated to study treatment. One AE and one SAE led to study withdrawal: oropharyngeal discomfort (Group 1); eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Group 2). No new safety concerns were identified throughout the 52-week treatment period. CONCLUSION: In this uncontrolled open-label study, no new safety concerns were observed with long-term (52 weeks) treatment with once-daily FF/UMEC/VI among 111 Japanese patients with asthma.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Japanese patients with inadequately controlled asthma: the CAPTAIN study.

OBJECTIVE: In CAPTAIN, a double-blind, parallel-group, Phase IIIA study, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) improved lung function, symptoms and asthma control versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Here, we report efficacy and safety from a Japanese cohort in CAPTAIN. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) were randomized (1:1:1:1:1:1) to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 mcg or 200/25 mcg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31.25/25 mcg, 100/62.5/25 mcg, 200/31.25/25 mcg, or 200/62.5/25 mcg) for ≥24 weeks. Endpoints included change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 (primary), annualized rate of moderate/severe asthma exacerbations (key secondary), clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (all Week 24), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS): Asthma total scores (Weeks 21-24) (all secondary). Adverse events and adverse events of special interest were monitored. Clinical trials.gov registry no: NCT02924688. RESULTS: Overall, 229 of 2436 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population were from Japan. In this cohort, change from baseline in trough FEV1 for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg versus FF/VI 100/25 mcg was 105 mL (95% confidence interval -5, 216) and 69 mL (-42, 179) for 200/62.5/25 mcg versus 200/25 mcg. These observations were supported by clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Moderate/severe exacerbation incidence was low and similar across pooled treatment groups (FF/VI, FF/UMEC 31.25 mcg/VI, FF/UMEC 62.5 mcg/VI). All pooled groups demonstrated clinically important improvements from baseline in ACQ-7, SGRQ and E-RS: Asthma total scores. Safety profiles were consistent with the overall ITT population, with no new safety concerns. CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC/VI is an effective option with a favorable risk-benefit profile in Japanese patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Fluticasone Furoate, Umeclidinium Bromide, and Vilanterol in Patients with Asthma, Using Data from a Phase IIIA Study (CAPTAIN).

BACKGROUND: This analysis aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone furoate (FF), the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC), and the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (VI), administered as dual (FF/VI) or triple (FF/UMEC/VI) single-inhaler therapy to patients with asthma, and to identify covariates that may influence the PK of each analyte. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained from the phase IIIA CAPTAIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02924688), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma taking ICS/LABA. Samples were collected at trough (defined as ≥ 20 h after the last dose) from all subjects randomized to the six treatment groups (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31.25/25 µg, 100/62.5/25 µg, 200/31.25/25 µg, 200/62.5/25 µg; FF/VI 100/25 µg, 200/25 µg) at week 24 or the early withdrawal visit. In a subset of patients, PK samples were obtained predose at week 12, and at 5-30 min, 45-90 min, and 2-3 h postdose. For each analyte, a population PK model was developed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. The maximum likelihood method was utilized to incorporate data below the quantifiable limit (BQL). Final models were used to derive the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum observed concentration at steady-state for each analyte. RESULTS: We obtained 4018, 2695, and 4032 samples from 1891, 1258, and 1891 patients, for FF, UMEC, and VI, respectively; 48%, 49%, and 50% of samples were reported as BQL for each analyte, respectively. The PK were adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination for FF, a two-compartment model with intravenous bolus input and first-order elimination for UMEC, and a three-compartment model with zero-order input and first-order elimination for VI. Statistically significant covariates were body weight on apparent inhaled clearance of FF, creatinine clearance on apparent clearance and body weight on apparent inhaled volume of distribution of the central compartment for UMEC, and race (East Asian, Japanese, and South East Asian heritage) on inhaled apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment for VI. However, the overall effects of covariates were marginal and thus do not warrant dose adjustment. Systemic exposures of FF or VI did not differ when administered as a single-inhaler triple (FF/UMEC/VI) or dual combination (FF/VI), and were similar to those reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: Only marginal covariate effects were observed, and thus no dose adjustments are deemed necessary for FF, UMEC, or VI. There was no difference in FF or VI systemic exposure in patients with asthma when administered as either triple (FF/UMEC/VI) or dual therapy (FF/VI). Together with efficacy findings from the CAPTAIN study, our data support the use of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy for patients with uncontrolled asthma currently receiving ICS/LABA.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (CAPTAIN): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3A trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30-50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20-60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg or 200/25 µg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg, 100/62·5/25 µg, 200/31·25/25 µg, or 200/62·5/25 µg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21-24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924688, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 µg n=407; 200/25 µg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg n=405; 100/62·5/25 µg n=406; 200/31·25/25 µg n=404; 200/62·5/25 µg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 µg versus FF/VI 100/25 µg was 110 mL (95% CI 66-153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 µg versus 200/25 µg was 92 mL (49-135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 µg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg vs FF/VI 100/25 µg: 96 mL [52-139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 µg vs 200/25 µg: 82 mL [39-125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 µg-containing versus FF 100 µg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·06 (95% CI -0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·09 (-0·16 to -0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]-63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]-36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]-24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]-25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk-benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice. FUNDING: GSK.

Prevalence of Acute Rehabilitation for Kids in the PICU: A Canadian Multicenter Point Prevalence Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mobilization practices, barriers, and mobility-related adverse events in Canadian PICUs. DESIGN: National 2-day point prevalence study. SETTING: Thirteen PICUs across Canada. PATIENTS: Children with a minimum 72-hour PICU length of stay on the allocated study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes of interest were the prevalence and nature of mobilization activities, rehabilitation resources, adverse events, and factors associated with out-of-bed mobility and therapist-provided mobility. Two PICUs (15%) had early mobilization practice guidelines, and one PICU (8%) reported a formal process for engaging families in the mobilization of patients. The prevalence of mobilization was 110 of 137 patient-days (80%). The commonest activity was out-of-bed mobility (87/137; 64% patient-days); there was no active mobilization on 46 patient-days (34%). Therapists provided mobility on 33% of patient-days. Mobility was most commonly facilitated by nurses (74% events) and family (49% events). Family participation was strongly associated with out-of-bed mobility (odds ratio 6.4; p = 0.001). Intubated, mechanically ventilated patients were mobilized out-of-bed on 18 of 50 patient-days (36%). However, the presence of an endotracheal tube, vasoactive infusions, and age greater than or equal to 3 years were independently associated with not being mobilized out-of-bed. Barriers were reported on 58 of 137 patient-days (42%), and adverse events occurred in 22 of 387 mobility events (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization is common and safe, and the majority of children in Canadian PICUs are being mobilized out-of-bed, even when mechanically ventilated. Family engagement in PICU-based rehabilitation is increasing. This study provides encouraging evidence that common barriers can be overcome in order to safely mobilize children in PICUs.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of E-RS:COPD in patients with spirometric asthma-COPD overlap.

BACKGROUND: The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS:COPD) is a patient-reported diary that assesses respiratory symptoms in stable COPD. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm trial (GSK ID: 200699; NCT02164539) assessed the structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the E-RS, and a separate wheeze item, for use in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD, but with spirometric characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol; a subset of patients referred to as spirometric asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]; N = 338). RESULTS: Factor analysis demonstrated that E-RS included Cough and Sputum, Chest Symptoms, and Breathlessness domains, with a Total score suitable for quantifying overall respiratory symptoms (comparative fit index: 0.9), consistent with the structure shown in COPD. The wheeze item did not fit the model. Total and domain scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: 0.7-0.9) and reproducible (intra-class correlations > 0.7). Moderate correlations between RS-Total and RS-Breathlessness scores were observed with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and Activity domain scores at baseline (r = 0.43 and r = 0.48, respectively). E-RS scores were sensitive to change when a patient global impression of change and SGRQ change scores were used to define responders, with changes of ≥ - 1.4 in RS-Total score interpreted as clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: E-RS:COPD scores were reliable, valid and responsive in this sample, suggesting the measure may be suitable for evaluating the severity of respiratory symptoms and the effects of treatment in patients with asthma and COPD that exhibit spirometric characteristics of both fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility. Further study of this instrument and wheeze in new samples of patients with ACO is warranted.

Use of clinical characteristics to predict spirometric classification of obstructive lung disease.

Background: There is no consensus on how to define patients with symptoms of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A diagnosis of asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) syndrome has been proposed, but its value is debated. This study (GSK Study 201703 [NCT02302417]) investigated the ability of statistical modeling approaches to define distinct disease groups in patients with obstructive lung disease (OLD) using medical history and spirometric data. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with diagnoses of asthma and/or COPD were categorized into three groups: 1) asthma (nonobstructive; reversible), 2) ACO (obstructive; reversible), and 3) COPD (obstructive; nonreversible). Obstruction was defined as a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity <0.7, and reversibility as a post-albuterol increase in FEV1 ≥200 mL and ≥12%. A primary model (PM), based on patients' responses to a health care practitioner-administered questionnaire, was developed using multinomial logistic regression modeling. Other multivariate statistical analysis models for identifying asthma and COPD as distinct entities were developed and assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) assessed the degree of overlap between groups. Results: The PM predicted spirometric classifications with modest sensitivity. Other analysis models performed with high discrimination (area under the ROC curve: asthma model, 0.94; COPD model, 0.87). PLS-DA identified distinct phenotypic groups corresponding to asthma and COPD. Conclusion: Within the OLD spectrum, patients with asthma or COPD can be identified as two distinct groups with a high degree of precision. Patients outside these classifications do not constitute a homogeneous group.

Safety of Adding Salmeterol to Fluticasone Propionate in Children with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) have been shown to increase the risk of asthma-related death among adults and the risk of asthma-related hospitalization among children. It is unknown whether the concomitant use of inhaled glucocorticoids with LABAs mitigates those risks. This trial prospectively evaluated the safety of the LABA salmeterol, added to fluticasone propionate, in a fixed-dose combination in children. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, children 4 to 11 years of age who required daily asthma medications and had a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The statistical design specified that noninferiority would be shown if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary safety end point was less than 2.675. The main efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Among the 6208 patients, 27 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 21 in the fluticasone-alone group had a serious asthma-related event (all were hospitalizations); the hazard ratio with fluticasone-salmeterol versus fluticasone alone was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 2.27), which showed the noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol (P=0.006). A total of 265 patients (8.5%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 309 (10.0%) in the fluticasone-alone group had a severe asthma exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children with asthma, salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone was associated with the risk of a serious asthma-related event that was similar to the risk with fluticasone alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; VESTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01462344 .).

The effect of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium in adult patients with asthma: a randomized, dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the dose-response of umeclidinium (UMEC; a long-acting muscarinic antagonist) combined with fluticasone furoate (FF; an inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) in patients with asthma. METHODS: In a double-blind, three-period crossover study, 421 subjects (symptomatic on ICS), were randomized to a sequence of three of seven treatments: FF 100 mcg alone, FF 100 mcg combined with UMEC (15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg), or vilanterol 25 mcg (a long-acting ß-agonist), inhaled once-daily for 14 days (12-14-day washout). Trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Period baseline was a significant covariate, indicating a potential carryover effect between treatment periods. Across all treatment periods, trough FEV1 improved with FF/UMEC 125 and 250 versus FF (treatment difference 0.055 L [both doses]; p = 0.018). FF/UMEC increased morning (15.9-22.9 L/min) and evening (16.2-28.8 L/min) PEF versus FF. As intended assessments were confounded, post hoc Period 1 data analyses were performed, demonstrating significant increases in trough FEV1 with FF/UMEC 31.25, 62.5, and 250 versus FF. Trough FEV1 improvements with FF/UMEC were greater in subjects with fixed (0.095-0.304 L) versus non-fixed (-0.084 to 0.041 L) obstruction. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 13-25% across groups. No treatment-related effects on laboratory parameters were reported. CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC may be a viable treatment for patients with asthma symptomatic on ICS; benefit may be most prominent in those with fixed obstruction. The carryover effect suggests future UMEC studies should use an alternative design. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01573624.