The burden of anxiety, depression, and stress, along with the prevalence of symptoms of PTSD, and perceptions of the drivers of psychological harms, as perceived by doctors and nurses working in ICUs in Nepal during the COVID-19 pandemic; a mixed method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant physical and psychological impacts for survivors, and for the healthcare professionals caring for patients. Nurses and doctors in critical care faced longer working hours, increased burden of patients, and limited resources, all in the context of personal social isolation and uncertainties regarding cross-infection. We evaluated the burden of anxiety, depression, stress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and alcohol dependence among doctors and nurses working in intensive care units (ICUs) in Nepal and explored the individual and social drivers for these impacts. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Nepal, using an online survey to assess psychological well-being and semi-structured interviews to explore perceptions as to the drivers of anxiety, stress, and depression. Participants were recruited from existing national critical care professional organisations in Nepal and using a snowball technique. The online survey comprised of validated assessment tools for anxiety, depression, stress, PTSD, and alcohol dependence; all tools were analysed using published guidelines. Interviews were analysed using rapid appraisal techniques, and themes regarding the drivers for psychological distress were explored. RESULTS: 134 respondents (113 nurses, 21 doctors) completed the online survey. Twenty-eight (21%) participants experienced moderate to severe symptoms of depression; 67 (50%) experienced moderate or severe symptoms of anxiety; 114 (85%) had scores indicative of moderate to high levels of stress; 46 out of 100 reported symptoms of PTSD. Compared to doctors, nurses experienced more severe symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD, whereas doctors experienced higher levels of stress than nurses. Most (95%) participants had scores indicative of low risk of alcohol dependence. Twenty participants were followed up in interviews. Social stigmatism, physical and emotional safety, enforced role change and the absence of organisational support were perceived drivers for poor psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: Nurses and doctors working in ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic sustained psychological impacts, manifesting as stress, anxiety, and for some, symptoms of PTSD. Nurses were more vulnerable. Individual characteristics and professional inequalities in healthcare may be potential modifiable factors for policy makers seeking to mitigate risks for healthcare providers.

Non-COVID-19 intensive care admissions during the pandemic: a multinational registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a large number of critical care admissions. While national reports have described the outcomes of patients with COVID-19, there is limited international data of the pandemic impact on non-COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care treatment. METHODS: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study using 2019 and 2020 data from 11 national clinical quality registries covering 15 countries. Non-COVID-19 admissions in 2020 were compared with all admissions in 2019, prepandemic. The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and standardised mortality ratio (SMR). Analyses were stratified by the country income level(s) of each registry. FINDINGS: Among 1 642 632 non-COVID-19 admissions, there was an increase in ICU mortality between 2019 (9.3%) and 2020 (10.4%), OR=1.15 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.17, p<0.001). Increased mortality was observed in middle-income countries (OR 1.25 95% CI 1.23 to 1.26), while mortality decreased in high-income countries (OR=0.96 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Hospital mortality and SMR trends for each registry were consistent with the observed ICU mortality findings. The burden of COVID-19 was highly variable, with COVID-19 ICU patient-days per bed ranging from 0.4 to 81.6 between registries. This alone did not explain the observed non-COVID-19 mortality changes. INTERPRETATION: Increased ICU mortality occurred among non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic, driven by increased mortality in middle-income countries, while mortality decreased in high-income countries. The causes for this inequity are likely multi-factorial, but healthcare spending, policy pandemic responses, and ICU strain may play significant roles.

National ICU Registries as Enablers of Clinical Research and Quality Improvement.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) have been implemented worldwide by several medical specialties aiming to generate a better characterization of epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of patients. National ICU registries were created almost 3 decades ago to improve the understanding of case-mix, resource use, and outcomes of critically ill patients. This narrative review describes the challenges, proposed solutions, and evidence generated by National ICU registries as facilitators for research and quality improvement. DATA SOURCES: English language articles were identified in PubMed using phrases related to ICU registries, CQRs, outcomes, and case-mix. STUDY SELECTION: Original research, review articles, letters, and commentaries, were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from relevant literature were identified, reviewed, and integrated into a concise narrative review. DATA SYNTHESIS: CQRs have been implemented worldwide by several medical specialties aiming to generate a better characterization of epidemiology, treatments, and outcomes of patients. National ICU registries were created almost 3 decades ago to improve the understanding of case-mix, resource use, and outcomes of critically ill patients. The initial experience in European countries and in Oceania ensured that through locally generated data, ICUs could assess their performances by using risk-adjusted measures and compare their results through fair and validated benchmarking metrics with other ICUs contributing to the CQR. The accomplishment of these initiatives, coupled with the increasing adoption of information technology, resulted in a broad geographic expansion of CQRs as well as their use in quality improvement studies, clinical trials as well as international comparisons, and benchmarking for ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: ICU registries have provided increased knowledge of case-mix and outcomes of ICU patients based on real-world data and contributed to improve care delivery through quality improvement initiatives and trials. Recent increases in adoption of new technologies (i.e., cloud-based structures, artificial intelligence, machine learning) will ensure a broader and better use of data for epidemiology, healthcare policies, quality improvement, and clinical trials.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units.

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Sepsis).

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Sepsis trial. Design setting and participants: The Mega-ROX Sepsis trial is an international randomised clinical trial that will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-patient registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We anticipate that between 10,000 and 13,000 patients with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU will be enrolled in this trial. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 days from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of patients discharged home. Results and conclusions: Mega-ROX Sepsis will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The protocol and a prespecified approach to analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with nonhypoxic ischaemic acute brain injuries and conditions in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Brains).

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults who have nonhypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy acute brain injuries and conditions and are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Brains trial. Design setting and participants: Mega-ROX Brains is an international randomised clinical trial, which will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-participant, registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We expect to enrol between 7500 and 9500 participants with nonhypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy acute brain injuries and conditions who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 d from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of participants discharged home. Results and conclusions: Mega-ROX Brains will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy regimens on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults in the ICU with acute brain injuries and conditions. The protocol and planned analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12620000391976).

Determinants of Implementation of a Critical Care Registry in Asia: Lessons From a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Research, Implementation, and Training in Critical Care in Asia (CCA) is implementing a critical care registry to capture real-time data to facilitate service evaluation, quality improvement, and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine stakeholder perspectives on the determinants of implementation of the registry by examining the processes of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability. METHODS: This study is a qualitative phenomenological inquiry using semistructured interviews with stakeholders involved in registry design, implementation, and use in 4 South Asian countries. The conceptual model of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery guided interviews and analysis. Interviews were coded using the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings procedure and were analyzed based on the constant comparison approach. RESULTS: A total of 32 stakeholders were interviewed. Analysis of stakeholder accounts identified 3 key themes: innovation-system fit; influence of champions; and access to resources and expertise. Determinants of implementation included data sharing, research experience, system resilience, communication and networks, and relative advantage and adaptability. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the registry has been possible due to efforts to increase the innovation-system fit, influence of motivated champions, and the support offered by access to resources and expertise. The reliance on individuals and the priorities of other health care actors pose a risk to sustainability.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Critical Care Pandemic Preparation: Considerations and Lessons Learned from COVID-19.

Pandemics, increases in disease incidence that affect multiple regions of the world, present huge challenges to health care systems and in particular to policymakers, public health authorities, clinicians, and all health care workers (HCWs). The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of severely ill patients, many of whom who have required hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The discipline of critical care is a vital and integral component of pandemic preparedness. Safe and effective critical care has the potential to improve outcomes, motivate individuals to seek timely medical attention, and attenuate the devastating sequelae of a severe pandemic. To achieve this, suitable critical care planning and preparation are essential.

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. RESULTS: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

White Paper on Early Critical Care Services in Low Resource Settings.

This White Paper has been formally accepted for support by the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) and by the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care (WFICC), put forth by a multi-specialty group of intensivists and emergency medicine providers from low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HiCs) with the aim of 1) defining the current state of caring for the critically ill in low-resource settings (LRS) within LMICs and 2) highlighting policy options and recommendations for improving the system-level delivery of early critical care services in LRS. LMICs have a high burden of critical illness and worse patient outcomes than HICs, hence, the focus of this White Paper is on the care of critically ill patients in the early stages of presentation in LMIC settings. In such settings, the provision of early critical care is challenged by a fragmented health system, costs, a health care workforce with limited training, and competing healthcare priorities. Early critical care services are defined as the early interventions that support vital organ function during the initial care provided to the critically ill patient-these interventions can be performed at any point of patient contact and can be delivered across diverse settings in the healthcare system and do not necessitate specialty personnel. Currently, a single "best" care delivery model likely does not exist in LMICs given the heterogeneity in local context; therefore, objective comparisons of quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness between varying models are difficult to establish. While limited, there is data to suggest that caring for the critically ill may be cost effective in LMICs, contrary to a widely held belief. Drawing from locally available resources and context, strengthening early critical care services in LRS will require a multi-faceted approach, including three core pillars: education, research, and policy. Education initiatives for physicians, nurses, and allied health staff that focus on protocolized emergency response training can bridge the workforce gap in the short-term; however, each country's current human resources must be evaluated to decide on the duration of training, who should be trained, and using what curriculum. Understanding the burden of critical Illness, best practices for resuscitation, and appropriate quality metrics for different early critical care services implementation models in LMICs are reliant upon strengthening the regional research capacity, therefore, standard documentation systems should be implemented to allow for registry use and quality improvement. Policy efforts at a local, national and international level to strengthen early critical care services should focus on funding the building blocks of early critical care services systems and promoting the right to access early critical care regardless of the patient's geographic or financial barriers. Additionally, national and local policies describing ethical dilemmas involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be developed with broad stakeholder representation based on local cultural beliefs as well as the optimization of limited resources.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

The revised Approved Instructional Resources score: An improved quality evaluation tool for online educational resources.

BACKGROUND: Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool. METHODS: As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability. RESULTS: Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.

Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system.

The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.

Performance evaluation of a multinational data platform for critical care in Asia.

Background: The value of medical registries strongly depends on the quality of the data collected. This must be objectively measured before large clinical databases can be promoted for observational research, quality improvement, and clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the quality of a multinational intensive care unit (ICU) network of registries of critically ill patients established in seven Asian low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: The Critical Care Asia federated registry platform enables ICUs to collect clinical, outcome and process data for aggregate and unit-level analysis. The evaluation used the standardised criteria of the Directory of Clinical Databases (DoCDat) and a framework for data quality assurance in medical registries. Six reviewers assessed structure, coverage, reliability and validity of the ICU registry data. Case mix and process measures on patient episodes from June to December 2020 were analysed. Results: Data on 20,507 consecutive patient episodes from 97 ICUs in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam were included. The quality level achieved according to the ten prespecified DoCDat criteria was high (average score 3.4 out of 4) as was the structural and organizational performance -- comparable to ICU registries in high-income countries. Identified strengths were types of variables included, reliability of coding, data completeness and validation. Potential improvements included extension of national coverage, optimization of recruitment completeness validation in all centers and the use of interobserver reliability checks. Conclusions: The Critical Care Asia platform evaluates well using standardised frameworks for data quality and equally to registries in resource-rich settings.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates: This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Clinical question: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? Context: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics. What is new?: The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19. About this guideline: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Patients, with a Focus on Resource-Limited Settings.

The ongoing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening the global human population, including in countries with resource-limited health facilities. Severe bilateral pneumonia is the main feature of severe COVID-19, and adequate ventilatory support is crucial for patient survival. Although our knowledge of the disease is still rapidly increasing, this review summarizes current guidance on the best provision of ventilatory support, with a focus on resource-limited settings. Key messages include that supplemental oxygen is a first essential step for the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia and should be a primary focus in resource-limited settings where capacity for invasive ventilation is limited. Oxygen delivery can be increased by using a non-rebreathing mask and prone positioning. The presence of only hypoxemia should in general not trigger intubation because hypoxemia is often remarkably well tolerated. Patients with fatigue and at risk for exhaustion, because of respiratory distress, will require invasive ventilation. In these patients, lung protective ventilation is essential. Severe pneumonia in COVID-19 differs in some important aspects from other causes of severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and limiting the positive end-expiratory pressure level on the ventilator may be important. This ventilation strategy might reduce the currently very high case fatality rate of more than 50% in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.