ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Use of pragmatic and explanatory trial designs in acute care research: lessons from COVID-19.

Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Open-label platform trials and a prospective meta-analysis suggest efficacy of anti-interleukin (IL)-6R therapies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving corticosteroids. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults hospitalized with COVID-19 received intravenous sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The phase 3 primary analysis population included patients with critical COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). The primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTS: There were 457 and 1365 patients randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. In phase 3, patients with critical COVID-19 receiving MV (n = 298; 28.2% on corticosteroids), the proportion with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status (alive, not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% for sarilumab and 35.5% for placebo (risk difference, +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P =.3261), a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio for death for sarilumab vs placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, .51 to 1.13) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, .25 to .94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish the efficacy of sarilumab in hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19. Post hoc analyses were consistent with other studies that found a benefit of sarilumab in patients receiving corticosteroids. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04315298.

Teamwork and Leadership Under Fire at the Epicenter of the COVID-19 Epidemic in the Bronx.

The first Covid-19 patient was admitted to Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) on March 10, 2020. Soon thereafter there was a rapid and exponential surge of Covid-19 admissions to MMC that could have resulted in catastrophic consequences if MMC had been overwhelmed, as happened in Europe. To adjust to this crisis our institution, under the inspiring leadership of Dr. Philip Ozuah, President and CEO of Montefiore Medicine, adopted an "all hands on deck" approach, mobilizing our entire workforce to expand our units to accommodate the growing number of patients being admitted. Given that the internal medicine (IM) and ICU units are part of the department of medicine (DOM), the DOM was at the center of this mobilization. The DOM is the largest department at MMC and mobilizing it required careful planning, seamless teamwork, and strong leadership. To achieve that goal, we applied a framework that we designate the "3C framework," denoting Coordination, Communication, and Collaboration. In this report we describe the many initiatives the Montefiore Einstein DOM implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic using the 3C framework. These included establishing the Medicine Covid-19 Taskforce to lead our efforts, starting a daily newsletter for up-to-date communications, rapidly expanding the ICU and IM units, converting most specialty inpatient consults to eConsults, coordinating research studies, and more. The goal of this report is to serve as a guide on how the 3C framework helped us organize, mobilize, and energize the department of medicine effectively and efficiently during this unprecedented crisis.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Evidence-Based Practices for Acute Respiratory Failure and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The recent pandemic highlights the essential nature of optimizing the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in complex critical care settings. This review of reviews maps evidence-based practices (EBPs) that are associated with better outcomes among adult patients with acute respiratory failure or ARDS on the continuum of care, from intubation to liberation. RESEARCH QUESTION: What EPBs are recommended to reduce the duration of IMV and mortality rate among patients with acute respiratory failure/ARDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified an initial set of reports that links EBPs to mortality rates and/or duration of IMV. We conducted a review of reviews, focusing on preappraised guidelines, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. We searched Scopus, CINAHL, and PubMed from January 2016 to January 2019 for additional evidence that has not yet been incorporated into current guidelines. RESULTS: Our initial search produced 61 publications that contained 42 EBPs. We excluded 42 manuscripts during the data extraction process, primarily because they were not associated with improved patient outcomes. The remaining 19 preappraised guidelines, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews met our full inclusion criteria and spanned the continuum of IMV care from intubation to liberation. These contained 20 EBPs, a majority of which were supported with moderate levels of evidence. Of these, six EBPs focused on intubation and escalation of care, such as ventilator management and synchrony; ten EBPs reduced complications associated with IMV, which included spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early mobility protocols; and four EBPs promoted timely extubation and postextubation recovery. INTERPRETATION: This review describes EBPs that are associated with fewer ventilator days and/or lower mortality rates among patients who received IMV for acute respiratory failure/ARDS. Many of these EBPs are connected across the care continuum, which indicates the need to promote and assess effective implementation jointly, rather than individually.