Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Therapeutic Hypothermia in Low-Risk Nonpumped Brain-Dead Kidney Donors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Delayed graft function in kidney-transplant recipients is associated with increased financial cost and patient burden. In donors with high Kidney Donor Profile Index whose kidneys are not pumped, therapeutic hypothermia has been shown to confer a protective benefit against delayed graft function. Objective: To determine whether hypothermia is superior to normothermia in preventing delayed graft function in low-risk nonpumped kidney donors after brain death. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a multicenter randomized clinical trial, brain-dead kidney donors deemed to be low risk and not requiring machine perfusion per Organ Procurement Organization protocol were prospectively randomized to hypothermia (34.0-35 °C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5 °C) between August 10, 2017, and May 21, 2020, across 4 Organ Procurement Organizations in the US (Arizona, Upper Midwest, Pacific Northwest, and Texas). The final analysis report is dated June 15, 2022, based on the data set received from the United Network for Organ Sharing on June 2, 2021. A total of 509 donors (normothermia: n = 245 and hypothermia: n = 236; 1017 kidneys) met inclusion criteria over the study period. Intervention: Donor hypothermia (34.0-35.0 °C) or normothermia (36.5-37.5 °C). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney recipients, defined as the need for dialysis within the first week following kidney transplant. The primary analysis follows the intent-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 934 kidneys were transplanted from 481 donors, of which 474 were randomized to the normothermia group and 460 to the hypothermia group. Donor characteristics were similar between the groups, with overall mean (SD) donor age 34.2 (11.1) years, and the mean donor creatinine level at enrollment of 1.03 (0.53) mg/dL. There was a predominance of Standard Criteria Donors (98% in each treatment arm) with similar low mean (SD) Kidney Donor Profile Index (normothermia: 28.99 [20.46] vs hypothermia: 28.32 [21.9]). Cold ischemia time was similar in the normothermia and hypothermia groups (15.99 [7.9] vs 15.45 [7.63] hours). Delayed graft function developed in 87 of the recipients (18%) in the normothermia group vs 79 (17%) in the hypothermia group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.64-1.33; P = .66). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, in low-risk non-pumped kidneys from brain-dead kidney donors, therapeutic hypothermia compared with normothermia does not appear to prevent delayed graft function in kidney transplant recipients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02525510.

Hypothermia or Machine Perfusion in Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic hypothermia in brain-dead organ donors has been shown to reduce delayed graft function in kidney recipients after transplantation. Data are needed on the effect of hypothermia as compared with machine perfusion on outcomes after kidney transplantation. METHODS: At six organ-procurement facilities in the United States, we randomly assigned brain-dead kidney donors to undergo therapeutic hypothermia (hypothermia group), ex situ kidney hypothermic machine perfusion (machine-perfusion group), or both (combination-therapy group). The primary outcome was delayed graft function in the kidney transplant recipients (defined as the initiation of dialysis during the first 7 days after transplantation). We also evaluated whether hypothermia alone was noninferior to machine perfusion alone and whether the combination of both methods was superior to each of the individual therapies. Secondary outcomes included graft survival at 1 year after transplantation. RESULTS: From 725 enrolled donors, 1349 kidneys were transplanted: 359 kidneys in the hypothermia group, 511 in the machine-perfusion group, and 479 in the combined-therapy group. Delayed graft function occurred in 109 patients (30%) in the hypothermia group, in 99 patients (19%) in the machine-perfusion group, and in 103 patients (22%) in the combination-therapy group. Adjusted risk ratios for delayed graft function were 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 2.17) for hypothermia as compared with machine perfusion, 1.57 (95% CI, 1.26 to 1.96) for hypothermia as compared with combination therapy, and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.40) for combination therapy as compared with machine perfusion. At 1 year, the frequency of graft survival was similar in the three groups. A total of 10 adverse events were reported, including cardiovascular instability in 9 donors and organ loss in 1 donor owing to perfusion malfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Among brain-dead organ donors, therapeutic hypothermia was inferior to machine perfusion of the kidney in reducing delayed graft function after transplantation. The combination of hypothermia and machine perfusion did not provide additional protection. (Funded by Arnold Ventures; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02525510.).

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Effect of balanced crystalloids versus saline on urinary biomarkers of acute kidney injury in critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have suggested use of balanced crystalloids may decrease the incidence of major adverse kidney events compared to saline in critically ill adults. The effect of crystalloid composition on biomarkers of early acute kidney injury remains unknown. METHODS: From February 15 to July 15, 2016, we conducted an ancillary study to the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART) comparing the effect of balanced crystalloids versus saline on urinary levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) and kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) among 261 consecutively-enrolled critically ill adults admitted from the emergency department to the medical ICU. After informed consent, we collected urine 36 ± 12 h after hospital admission and measured NGAL and KIM-1 levels using commercially available ELISAs. Levels of NGAL and KIM-1 at 36 ± 12 h were compared between patients assigned to balanced crystalloids versus saline using a Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The 131 patients (50.2%) assigned to the balanced crystalloid group and the 130 patients (49.8%) assigned to the saline group were similar at baseline. Urinary NGAL levels were significantly lower in the balanced crystalloid group (median, 39.4 ng/mg [IQR 9.9 to 133.2]) compared with the saline group (median, 64.4 ng/mg [IQR 27.6 to 339.9]) (P < 0.001). Urinary KIM-1 levels did not significantly differ between the balanced crystalloid group (median, 2.7 ng/mg [IQR 1.5 to 4.9]) and the saline group (median, 2.4 ng/mg [IQR 1.3 to 5.0]) (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In this ancillary analysis of a clinical trial comparing balanced crystalloids to saline among critically ill adults, balanced crystalloids were associated with lower urinary concentrations of NGAL and similar urinary concentrations of KIM-1, compared with saline. These results suggest only a modest reduction in early biomarkers of acute kidney injury with use of balanced crystalloids compared with saline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02444988 . Date registered: May 15, 2015.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

A Regression Framework for Causal Mediation Analysis with Applications to Behavioral Science.

We introduce and extend the classical regression framework for conducting mediation analysis from the fit of only one model. Using the essential mediation components (EMCs) allows us to estimate causal mediation effects and their analytical variance. This single-equation approach reduces computation time and permits the use of a rich suite of regression tools that are not easily implemented on a system of three equations. Additionally, we extend this framework to non-nested mediation systems, provide a joint measure of mediation for complex mediation hypotheses, propose new visualizations for mediation effects, and explain why estimates of the total effect may differ depending on the approach used. Using data from social science studies, we also provide extensive illustrations of the usefulness of this framework and its advantages over traditional approaches to mediation analysis. The example data are freely available for download online and we include the R code necessary to reproduce our results.

The GRE over the entire range of scores lacks predictive ability for PhD outcomes in the biomedical sciences.

The association between GRE scores and academic success in graduate programs is currently of national interest. GRE scores are often assumed to be predictive of student success in graduate school. However, we found no such association in admission data from Vanderbilt's Initiative for Maximizing Student Diversity (IMSD), which recruited historically underrepresented students for graduate study in the biomedical sciences at Vanderbilt University spanning a wide range of GRE scores. This study avoids the typical biases of most GRE investigations of performance where primarily high-achievers on the GRE were admitted. GRE scores, while collected at admission, were not used or consulted for admission decisions and comprise the full range of percentiles, from 1% to 91%. We report on the 32 students recruited to the Vanderbilt IMSD from 2007-2011, of which 28 completed the PhD to date. While the data set is not large, the predictive trends between GRE and long-term graduate outcomes (publications, first author publications, time to degree, predoctoral fellowship awards, and faculty evaluations) are remarkably null and there is sufficient precision to rule out even mild relationships between GRE and these outcomes. Career outcomes are encouraging; many students are in postdocs, and the rest are in regular stage-appropriate career environments for such a cohort, including tenure track faculty, biotech and entrepreneurship careers.

Acute Kidney Injury and Subsequent Frailty Status in Survivors of Critical Illness: A Secondary Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Acute kidney injury frequently complicates critical illness and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Frailty is common in critical illness survivors, but little is known about the impact of acute kidney injury. We examined the association of acute kidney injury and frailty within a year of hospital discharge in survivors of critical illness. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical/surgical ICU of a U.S. tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventeen participants with respiratory failure and/or shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acute kidney injury was determined using Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages. Clinical frailty status was determined using the Clinical Frailty Scale at 3 and 12 months following discharge. Covariates included mean ICU Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score as well as baseline comorbidity (i.e., Charlson Comorbidity Index), kidney function, and Clinical Frailty Scale score. Of 317 patients, 243 (77%) had acute kidney injury and one in four patients with acute kidney injury was frail at baseline. In adjusted models, acute kidney injury stages 1, 2, and 3 were associated with higher frailty scores at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.14-3.24; odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.31-4.42; and odds ratio, 4.41; 95% CI, 2.20-8.82, respectively). At 12 months, a similar association of acute kidney injury stages 1, 2, and 3 and higher Clinical Frailty Scale score was noted (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.11-3.14; odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.94-3.48; and odds ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.34-5.66, respectively). In supplemental and sensitivity analyses, analogous patterns of association were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury in survivors of critical illness predicted worse frailty status 3 and 12 months postdischarge. These findings have important implications on clinical decision making among acute kidney injury survivors and underscore the need to understand the drivers of frailty to improve patient-centered outcomes.

A classical regression framework for mediation analysis: fitting one model to estimate mediation effects.

Mediation analysis explores the degree to which an exposure's effect on an outcome is diverted through a mediating variable. We describe a classical regression framework for conducting mediation analyses in which estimates of causal mediation effects and their variance are obtained from the fit of a single regression model. The vector of changes in exposure pathway coefficients, which we named the essential mediation components (EMCs), is used to estimate standard causal mediation effects. Because these effects are often simple functions of the EMCs, an analytical expression for their model-based variance follows directly. Given this formula, it is instructive to revisit the performance of routinely used variance approximations (e.g., delta method and resampling methods). Requiring the fit of only one model reduces the computation time required for complex mediation analyses and permits the use of a rich suite of regression tools that are not easily implemented on a system of three equations, as would be required in the Baron-Kenny framework. Using data from the BRAIN-ICU study, we provide examples to illustrate the advantages of this framework and compare it with the existing approaches.

Protection of HepG2 cells against acrolein toxicity by 2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9-dien-28-imidazolide via glutathione-mediated mechanism.

Acrolein is an environmental toxicant, mainly found in smoke released from incomplete combustion of organic matter. Several studies showed that exposure to acrolein can lead to liver damage. The mechanisms involved in acrolein-induced hepatocellular toxicity, however, are not completely understood. This study examined the cytotoxic mechanisms of acrolein on HepG2 cells. Acrolein at pathophysiological concentrations was shown to cause apoptotic cell death and an increase in levels of protein carbonyl and thiobarbituric acid reactive acid substances. Acrolein also rapidly depleted intracellular glutathione (GSH), GSH-linked glutathione-S-transferases, and aldose reductase, three critical cellular defenses that detoxify reactive aldehydes. Results further showed that depletion of cellular GSH by acrolein preceded the loss of cell viability. To further determine the role of cellular GSH in acrolein-mediated cytotoxicity, buthionine sulfoximine (BSO) was used to inhibit cellular GSH biosynthesis. It was observed that depletion of cellular GSH by BSO led to a marked potentiation of acrolein-mediated cytotoxicity in HepG2 cells. To further assess the contribution of these events to acrolein-induced cytotoxicity, triterpenoid compound 2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9-dien-28-imidazolide (CDDO-Im) was used for induction of GSH. Induction of GSH by CDDO-Im afforded cytoprotection against acrolein toxicity in HepG2 cells. Furthermore, BSO significantly inhibited CDDO-Im-mediated induction in cellular GSH levels and also reversed cytoprotective effects of CDDO-Im in HepG2 cells. These results suggest that GSH is a predominant mechanism underlying acrolein-induced cytotoxicity as well as CDDO-Im-mediated cytoprotection. This study may provide understanding on the molecular action of acrolein which may be important to develop novel strategies for the prevention of acrolein-mediated toxicity.