ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19.DesignMulticentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial.Setting15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021.ParticipantsEligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis.InterventionPatients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen.ResultsThe trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care.ConclusionAmong non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.
To estimate associations of exclusive human milk (EHM) feedings with growth and neurodevelopment through 18 months corrected age (CA) in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. ELBW infants admitted from July 2011 to June 2013 who survived were reviewed. Infants managed from July 2011 to June 2012 were fed with bovine milk-based fortifiers and formula (BOV). Beginning in July 2012, initial feedings used a human milk-based fortifier to provide EHM feedings. Infants were grouped on the basis of feeding regimen. Primary outcomes were the Bayley-III cognitive scores at 6, 12, and 18 months and growth. Infants ( = 85; 46% received EHM) were born at 26 ± 1.9 weeks ( = 0.92 between groups) weighing 776 ± 139 g ( = 0.67 between groups). Cognitive domain scores were similar at 6 months (BOV: 96 ± 7; EHM: 95 ± 14; = 0.70), 12 months (BOV: 97 ± 10; EHM: 98 ± 9; = 0.86), and 18 months (BOV: 97 ± 16; EHM: 98 ± 14; = 0.71) CA. Growth velocity prior to discharge (BOV: 12.1 ± 5.2 g/kg/day; EHM: 13.1 ± 4.0 g/kg/day; = 0.33) and subsequent growth was similar between groups. EHM feedings appear to support similar growth and neurodevelopment in ELBW infants as compared with feedings containing primarily bovine milk-based products.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.