The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

Background The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough‐designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough‐designated and non–breakthrough‐designated cancer drug approvals. Methods A cross‐sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO‐VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO‐CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO‐MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO‐VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression‐free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO‐CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO‐MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus. Results This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO‐VF, ASCO‐CRC, ESMO‐MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO‐VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO‐CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO‐MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001). Conclusions In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO‐VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO‐MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO‐CRC scale.

For regulatory approval, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires evidence of safety and efficacy of new drugs from adequate and well-controlled trials. 1 Improved understanding of the molecular basis of cancer, has led to rapid development of new drugs. In combination with regulatory changes providing rapid review and approval of drugs for diseases with unmet need, 2 this acceleration has led the FDA to use overall response rates (ORRs) assessed in single-arm trials as the basis for approval.Fewer than half of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) supporting FDA approval meet substantial clinical benefit thresholds defined using validated scales such as the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). 3 In this study, we applied version 1.1 of the ESMO-MCBS 4 to single-arm trials that have supported FDA approval.