Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

Outpatient glucocorticoid use and COVID-19 outcomes: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Owing to controversy information surrounds effect of glucocorticoids on the evolution of COVID-19, we evaluate the effects of outpatient glucocorticoid use on the severity and progression of COVID-19 and risk of infection and analyse the effect of window of exposure and dose.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based case - control study, involving 4 substudies: (i) Hospitalisation; (ii) Mortality, using subjects hospitalised with a PCR + as cases and subjects without a PCR + as controls; (iii) Progression, including subjects with a PCR + (hospitalised versus non-hospitalised); and (iv) Susceptibility, with all subjects with a PCR + and subjects without a PCR + . Adjusted odds ratios (ORa) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

The outpatient glucocorticoid use was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation (aOR 1.79; 95% CI 1.56-2.05), mortality (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.68-3.15), progression (aOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.43-2.00) and susceptibility (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19-1.41). Furthermore, the effects was observed to be greater at higher doses and the closer that drug use approached the outcome date, with an almost fourfold increase in mortality among users in the previous month (aOR 3.85; 95% CI 2.63-5.62).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this real-world data study, outpatient glucocorticoid use should be considered in making decisions about intrahospital treatment.

Efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in the treatment of mild to moderate Covid-19 patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence on ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19 is controversial. A Cochrane review concluded that the efficacy and safety of ivermectin is uncertain (evidence up to April 2022) and WHO recommended its use only in the setting of clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral ivermectin in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate Covid-19.

TRIAL DESIGN AND METHODS

A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted among RT-PCR-confirmed, adults, hospitalised within the first four days of symptoms. Patients received oral ivermectin 24 mg or placebo daily for five days. RT-PCR was repeated on days five and ten. Clinical progression was monitored using the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale. Serum ivermectin levels were measured on days three, five, and seven. The primary outcome was the difference in the viral load between day zero and ten in the two groups.

RESULTS

Out of 1699 patients screened, 249 underwent randomization and 127 received ivermectin, and 122 placebo. D10 median viral load for E gene (IQR) was 2,000 copies/mL (100 - 20,500) with ivermectin (n = 80) and 4,100 copies/mL (1,000-65,600) with placebo (n = 81, p = 0.028), per protocol analysis. The difference in Log viral load between day zero and ten between ivermectin and placebo was 3.72 and 2.97 respectively (p = 0.022). There was no significant difference in the WHO clinical progression scale or the adverse effects. Ivermectin blood levels taken before or with meals were not significantly different. Only 7 and 17 patients achieved blood levels above 160ng/ML and 100ng/ML respectively and they did not achieve a significantly lower viral load.

CONCLUSION

Although ivermectin resulted in statistically significant lower viral load in patients with mild to moderate Covid-19, it had no significant effect on clinical symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

SLCTR/2021/020, Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry. 19/07/2021.

Intensive care unit-acquired infections more common in patients with COVID-19 than with influenza

Intensive care unit-acquired infections are complicating events in critically ill patients. In this study we analyzed the incidence, microbiological patterns, and outcome in patients with COVID-19 versus influenza in the intensive care unit (ICU). We included all adult patients treated with invasive mechanical ventilation due to (1) COVID-19 between January 2020 and March 2022, and (2) influenza between January 2015 and May 2023 at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. Of the 480 participants included in the final analysis, 436 had COVID-19. The incidence rates of ICU-acquired infections were 31.6/1000 and 9.9/1000 ICU-days in the COVID-19 and influenza cohorts, respectively. Ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections were most common in both groups. In patients with COVID-19, corticosteroid treatment was associated with an increased risk of ICU-acquired infections and with higher 90-day mortality in case of infection. Furthermore, ICU-acquired infection was associated with a prolonged time in the ICU, with more difficult-to-treat gram-negative infections in late versus early ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections. Further research is needed to understand how the association between corticosteroid treatment and incidence and outcome of ICU-acquired infections varies across different patient categories.

Efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

METHODS

Between May 01, 2023, and June 20, 2023, 48 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were treated at the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine of Jinan Fourth People's Hospital. The observation group (21 patients) received standard care and high-dose corticosteroids, (high-dose group). The control group (27 patients) received standard care and low-dose corticosteroids (low-dose group). We collected baseline data and recorded inflammatory marker levels after 3 days of treatment, body temperature recovery time, length of stay, and 28-day all-cause mortality. The results of outpatient follow-up were recorded after 1 month.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality and length of stay. The number of days it took for body temperature to return to normal in the high-dose group was less than in the low-dose group. The high-dose group had significantly more reduced inflammatory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6). A total of 20 discharged patients were given 8-16 mg of methylprednisolone, depending on chest computed tomography (CT) and clinical symptoms after 1 month; in all discharged patients using oral corticosteroids, CT features improved.

CONCLUSION

High-dose corticosteroids had a significantly positive effect on the reduction of inflammatory factors and shortening body temperature recovery time. In the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, early administration of high-dose, short-course corticosteroids should be implemented.

Pharmacokinetics of recombinant human annexin A5 (SY-005) in patients with severe COVID-19

Objective: Annexin A5 is a phosphatidylserine binding protein with anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant and anti-apoptotic properties. Preclinical studies have shown that annexin A5 inhibits pro-inflammatory responses and improves organ function and survival in rodent models of sepsis. This clinical trial aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of the recombinant human annexin A5 (SY-005) in severe COVID-19. Methods: This was a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Severe COVID-19 patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous 50 μg/kg (low dose, n = 3), 100 μg/kg (high dose, n = 5) of SY-005 or placebo (n = 5) every 12 h for 7 days. Plasma SY-005 levels were assessed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the PK parameters were determined using non-compartmental analysis. Results: All patients treated with SY-005 had a normal baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, 104-125 mL/min/1.73 m2). Both low and high doses of SY-005 were cleared within 6 h after intravenous administration. Plasma maximum concentrations (Cmax), half-life, clearance and volume distribution of low and high doses of SY-005 were 402.4 and 848.9 ng/mL, 0.92 and 0.96 h, 7.52 and 15.19 L/h, and 9.98 and 20.79 L, respectively. Daily pre-dose circulating annexin A5 levels were not significantly different when SY-005 was administered at the low or the high dose 12-h intervals. There was no significant effect on activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) or INR (international normalized ratio of prothrombin time) during 7 days of SY-005 treatment. Conclusion: SY-005 doses of 50 and 100 μg/kg were detectable and subsequently cleared from the plasma in severe COVID-19 patients with normal baseline renal function. There was no significant plasma SY-005 accumulation 6 h after drug administration and coagulation was not altered during 7 days of treatment. Clinical trials Registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04748757, first posted on 10 February 2021).

Catalase: A Potential Pharmacologic Target for Hydrogen Peroxide in the Treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in the elderly with COVID-19 complicated by airway obstruction with sputum and mucus, and cases of asphyxia with blood, serous fluid, pus, or meconium in newborns and people of different ages can sometimes cause hypoxemia and death from hypoxic damage to brain cells, because the medical standard does not include intrapulmonary injections of oxygen-producing solutions. The physical-chemical repurposing of hydrogen peroxide from an antiseptic to an oxygen-producing antihypoxant offers hope for the development of new drugs.

METHODS

This manuscript is a meta-analysis performed according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

It is shown that replacement of the traditional acidic activity of hydrogen peroxide solutions by alkaline activity with pH 8.4 and heating the solutions to the temperature of +37 - +42 °C allows to repurpose hydrogen peroxide from antiseptics into inhalation and intrapulmonary mucolytics, pyolytics and antihypoxants releasing oxygen. The fact is that warm alkaline hydrogen peroxide solution (WAHPS) in local interaction with sputum, mucus, pus, blood and meconium provides optimal conditions for the metabolism of hydrogen peroxide to oxygen gas under the action of the enzyme catalase, always present in these tissues. It was established that WAHPS liquefies these biological masses due to alkaline saponification of lipid and protein-lipid complexes and simultaneously transforms dense masses into soft oxygen foam due to active enzymatic metabolism of hydrogen peroxide to oxygen gas, the rapidly appearing bubbles of which are formed by the type of "cold boiling" and literally explode these masses. The results of the first experiments showed that inhalation and intrapulmonary injections of WAHPS can significantly optimize the treatment of suffocation and hypoxemia.

DISCUSSION

The results showed that catalase, which is found in sputum, mucus, pus, and blood, may be a target for localized WAHPS because this enzyme provides an intensive metabolism of hydrogen peroxide to oxygen gas up to the formation of the cold boiling process.

CONCLUSION

These data provide a new perspective way for intrapulmonary drugs and new technologies for the emergency increase of blood oxygenation through the lungs in asphyxia with thick sputum, mucus, pus, meconium and blood.

Efficacy and Safety of Glucocorticoid in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome caused by Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.

CONCLUSIONS

Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Epidemiology, clinical presentation and treatment outcomes in patients with COVID-19 in an ambulatory setting: a cross sectional study during the massive SARS-CoV-2 wave in India

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has profoundly affected developing countries like India. This retrospective cross-sectional analysis investigated epidemiological, clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and outcomes for hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the Massive SARS-CoV-2 Wave in India. Among 233 patients, the median age was 47.33 years, mostly male. Hospital stays averaged 8.4 days. Common symptoms include fever (88.41%), dry cough (56.2%), myalgia (44.20%), and shortness of breath (22.8%). The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus (52%) and hypertension (47.2%). Elevated biomarkers include D-dimer (24.4%), CRP (32.1%), ferritin (26.60%), and others. Prescription analysis revealed that antibiotics (42.6%), Antivirals (37%), anthelmintics (20.30%), vitamins and nutritional supplements (20.71%) and glucocorticoids (12.8%) were the most commonly prescribed. Oxygen therapy was needed by 19.31% of patients in the moderate and severe categories within 24 hours of admission. The mortality rate was 8.58%. The surge led to increased hospitalizations and mortality, particularly among young adults. Diabetes and hypertension were correlated with mortality. Irregular use of drugs lacking evidence, like antibiotics and anthelmintics, vitamins and nutritional supplements, was observed in COVID-19 management. This study underscores the impact of the pandemic in India and highlights the need for evidence-based treatments.

Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from high dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian post-hoc reanalysis of the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching very important difference in the effect-size. In the COVIDICUS trial, no evidence of additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20) was found. We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care 6 mg dose of DXM (DXMSoC).

METHODS

We performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXMSoc or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The outcome was the 60 day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with treatment effect measured on the hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model. Bayesian analyses allowed to compute the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit (HR < 0.95), and that of a potential harm (HR > 1.05). Bayesian measures of interaction then quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the HR of death differed across the subsets by 20%. Primary analyses used noninformative priors, centred on HR = 1.00. Sensitivity analyses used sceptical and enthusiastic priors, based on null (HR = 1.00) or benefit (HR = 0.95) effects.

RESULTS

Overall, the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit and potential harm was 29.0 and 51.1%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction (i) according to age (Pr Interact, 84%), with a 86.5% probability of benefit in patients aged below 70 compared to 22% in those aged above 70; (ii) according to the time since symptoms onset (Pr Interact, 99%), with a 99.9% probability of a more than trivial benefit when lower than 7 days compared to a < 0.1% probability when delayed by 7 days or more; and (iii) according to use of remdesivir (Pr Interact, 91%), with a 90.1% probability of benefit in patients receiving remdesivir compared to 19.1% in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1 ); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43 ).

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 and cardiovascular disease

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus behind the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is a type of RNA virus that is nonsegmented. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increase the mortality risk of patients. In this review article, we overview the existing evidence regarding the potential mechanisms of myocardial damage in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Having a comprehensive knowledge of the cardiovascular damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 and its underlying mechanisms is essential for providing prompt and efficient treatment, ultimately leading to a reduction in mortality rates. Severe COVID-19 causes acute respiratory distress syndrome and shock in patients. In addition, awareness regarding COVID-19 cardiovascular manifestations has increased, including the adverse impact on prognosis with cardiovascular involvement. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor may play a role in acute myocardial injury caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. COVID-19 patients experiencing heart failure may have their condition exacerbated by various contributing factors and mechanisms. Increased oxygen demand, myocarditis, stress cardiomyopathy, elevated pulmonary pressures, and venous thrombosis are potential health issues. The combination of these factors may lead to COVID-19-related cardiogenic shock, resulting in acute systolic heart failure. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are treatment options when inotropic support fails for effective circulatory support. To ensure effective COVID-19-related cardiovascular disease (CVD) surveillance, it is crucial to closely monitor the future host adaptation, viral evolution, and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, given the virus's pandemic potential.

Experiment aversion among clinicians and the public - an obstacle to evidence-based medicine and public health

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for determining the safety and efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pragmatic RCTs for Covid-19 or other interventions became more positive early in the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of RCTs.

Methods

We conducted several survey studies with laypeople (total n=2,909) and two with clinicians (n=895; n=1,254) in 2020 and 2021. Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision.

Results

Compared to our pre-pandemic results, we found no decrease in laypeople's aversion to non-Covid-19 experiments involving catheterization checklists and hypertension drugs. Nor were either laypeople or clinicians less averse to Covid-19 RCTs (concerning corticosteroid drugs, vaccines, intubation checklists, proning, school reopening, and mask protocols), on average. Across all vignettes and samples, levels of experiment aversion ranged from 28% to 57%, while levels of experiment appreciation (in which the RCT is rated higher than the participant's highest-rated intervention) ranged from only 6% to 35%.

Conclusions

Advancing evidence-based medicine through pragmatic RCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among both patients and healthcare professionals.