Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Rationale Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. Objectives To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. Methods We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. Measurements and Main Results Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient: $75,850 control, $51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents ($98,220 control, $22,690 intervention; P = 0.028). Among decedents, the intervention reduced ICU and hospital length of stay (28.5 vs. 7.7 d and 31.8 vs. 8.0 d, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions Communication facilitators may be associated with decreased family depressive symptoms at 6 months, but we found no significant difference at 3 months or in anxiety or PTSD. The intervention reduced costs and length of stay, especially among decedents. This is the first study to find a reduction in intensity of end-of-life care with similar or improved family distress. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00720200).

Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Between Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89–1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02–1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90–1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%). In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented strain on health systems, with rapidly increasing demand for healthcare in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. As the pandemic escalates, determining the resulting needs for healthcare resources (beds, staff, equipment) has become a key priority for many countries. Projecting future demand requires estimates of how long patients with COVID-19 need different levels of hospital care. Methods We performed a systematic review of early evidence on length of stay (LoS) of patients with COVID-19 in hospital and in ICU. We subsequently developed a method to generate LoS distributions which combines summary statistics reported in multiple studies, accounting for differences in sample sizes. Applying this approach, we provide distributions for total hospital and ICU LoS from studies in China and elsewhere, for use by the community. Results We identified 52 studies, the majority from China (46/52). Median hospital LoS ranged from 4 to 53 days within China, and 4 to 21 days outside of China, across 45 studies. ICU LoS was reported by eight studies—four each within and outside China—with median values ranging from 6 to 12 and 4 to 19 days, respectively. Our summary distributions have a median hospital LoS of 14 (IQR 10–19) days for China, compared with 5 (IQR 3–9) days outside of China. For ICU, the summary distributions are more similar (median (IQR) of 8 (5–13) days for China and 7 (4–11) days outside of China). There was a visible difference by discharge status, with patients who were discharged alive having longer LoS than those who died during their admission, but no trend associated with study date. Conclusion Patients with COVID-19 in China appeared to remain in hospital for longer than elsewhere. This may be explained by differences in criteria for admission and discharge between countries, and different timing within the pandemic. In the absence of local data, the combined summary LoS distributions provided here can be used to model bed demands for contingency planning and then updated, with the novel method presented here, as more studies with aggregated statistics emerge outside China.

Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years. Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247). Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI −0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (−£910, 95% CI −1503 to −317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR. Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

There are different patterns in the COVID-19 outbreak in the general population and amongst nursing home patients. We investigate the time from symptom onset to diagnosis and hospitalization or the length of stay (LoS) in the hospital, and whether there are differences in the population. Sciensano collected information on 14,618 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admissions from 114 Belgian hospitals between 14 March and 12 June 2020. The distributions of different event times for different patient groups are estimated accounting for interval censoring and right truncation of the time intervals. The time between symptom onset and hospitalization or diagnosis are similar, with median length between symptom onset and hospitalization ranging between 3 and 10.4 days, depending on the age of the patient (longest delay in age group 20–60 years) and whether or not the patient lives in a nursing home (additional 2 days for patients from nursing home). The median LoS in hospital varies between 3 and 10.4 days, with the LoS increasing with age. The hospital LoS for patients that recover is shorter for patients living in a nursing home, but the time to death is longer for these patients. Over the course of the first wave, the LoS has decreased.

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care. In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16–55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659. Of 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0–3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0–8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1–3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging. Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention. UK National Institute for Health Research.

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

ObjectiveTo estimate inpatient care costs of childhood severe pneumonia and its urban–rural cost variation, and to predict cost drivers.DesignThe study was nested within a cluster randomised trial of childhood severe pneumonia management. Cost per episode of severe pneumonia was estimated from a healthcare provider perspective for children who received care from public inpatient facilities. A bottom-up micro-costing approach was applied and data collected using structured questionnaire and review of the patient record. Multivariate regression analysis determined cost predictors and sensitivity analysis explored robustness of cost parameters.SettingEight public inpatient care facilities from two districts of Bangladesh covering urban and rural areas.PatientsChildren aged 2–59 months with WHO-classified severe pneumonia.ResultsData on 1252 enrolled children were analysed; 795 (64%) were male, 787 (63%) were infants and 59% from urban areas. Average length of stay (LoS) was 4.8 days (SD ±2.5) and mean cost per patient was US$48 (95% CI: US$46, US$49). Mean cost per patient was significantly greater for urban tertiary-level facilities compared with rural primary–secondary facilities (mean difference US$43; 95% CI: US$40, US$45). No cost variation was found relative to age, sex, malnutrition or hypoxaemia. Type of facility was the most important cost predictor. LoS and personnel costs were the most sensitive cost parameters.ConclusionHealthcare provider cost of childhood severe pneumonia was substantial for urban located public health facilities that provided tertiary-level care. Thus, treatment availability at a lower-level facility at a rural location may help to reduce overall treatment costs.

Background For gastric cancer patients, surgical resection with en-bloc lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative treatment. Open gastrectomy has long been the preferred surgical approach worldwide. However, this procedure is associated with considerable morbidity. Several meta-analyses have shown an advantage in short-term outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy compared to open procedures, with similar oncologic outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether the results of these Asian studies can be extrapolated to the Western population. In this trial from the Netherlands, patients with resectable gastric cancer will be randomized to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Methods The study is a non-blinded, multicenter, prospectively randomized controlled superiority trial. Patients (≥18 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3b, M0) gastric adenocarcinoma and European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 are eligible to participate in the study after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 210) will be included in one of the ten participating Dutch centers and are randomized to either laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. The primary outcome is postoperative hospital stay (days). Secondary outcome parameters include postoperative morbidity and mortality, oncologic outcomes, readmissions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion In this randomized controlled trial laparoscopic and open gastrectomy are compared in patients with resectable gastric cancer. It is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will result in a faster recovery of the patient and a shorter hospital stay. Secondly, it is expected that laparoscopic gastrectomy will be associated with a lower postoperative morbidity, less readmissions, higher cost-effectiveness, better postoperative quality of life, but with similar mortality and oncologic outcomes, compared to open gastrectomy. The study started on 1 December 2014. Inclusion and follow-up will take 3 and 5 years respectively. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient. Trial registration NCT02248519