Writing Committee for the REMAP-CAP Investigators IMPORTANCE The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive.OBJECTIVE To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONSThe immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, −1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11...

Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

No abstract

ImportanceThe longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPrespecified 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.InterventionsPatients 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 MeasuresThe 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.ResultsAmong 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 &amp;gt;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 RelevanceAmong 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.

Objective To investigate the positive impact of e-aid cognitive behavioural therapy on the sleep quality, anxiety, and depression of nurses on site during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Nurses on site at the Tianjin Medical University General Hospital Airport Site experiencing insomnia, anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 prevention and control period, from February 2020 to April 2021, were selected and divided into either an e-aid cognitive behavioural therapy (eCBT-I) group or a control group using a randomized grouping method. The eCBT-I group was given standard eCBT-I for 6 weeks; the control group did not get any intervention. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) were used to evaluate the sleep quality of the subjects. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) were used to assess the subjects’ anxiety and depression. Changes in sleep quality, anxiety and depression before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. Results Of 118 nurses randomized, the PSQI and ISI scores within the eCBT-I group ( n =60) were significantly lower after treatment (5.9 ± 3.9, 6.7 ± 4.5) than before treatment (10.4 ± 3.5, 12.4 ± 4.7) ( p <0.05). Compared to the scores of the control group ( n =58) (9.1 ± 3.9, 10.6 ± 4.1), the PSQI and ISI scores in the eCBT-I group (5.9 ± 3.9, 6.7 ± 4.5) were lower after treatment ( p <0.05). The GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores in the eCBT-I group were all lower after treatment (3.7±3.4, 4.2±4.1) than before treatment (6.7±4.9, 7.7±5.1) ( p <0.05). Compared with subjects in the control group (7.1±5.6, 7.3±5.1), subjects in the eCBT-I group (3.7±3.4, 4.2±4.1) had lower scores on the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scales after treatment ( p <0.05). Conclusion eCBT-I improved the sleep quality of frontline nurses during the COVID-19 prevention and control period and relieved anxiety and depression.