Strategies to Promote ResiliencY (SPRY): a randomised embedded multifactorial adaptative platform (REMAP) clinical trial protocol to study interventions to improve recovery after surgery in high-risk patients

Adaptation of the Risk Analysis Index for Frailty Assessment Using Diagnostic Codes

Importance

Frailty is associated with adverse outcomes after even minor physiologic stressors. The validated Risk Analysis Index (RAI) quantifies frailty; however, existing methods limit application to in-person interview (clinical RAI) and quality improvement datasets (administrative RAI).

Objective

To expand the utility of the RAI utility to available International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) administrative data, using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS).

Design, Setting, and Participants

RAI parameters were systematically adapted to ICD-10-CM codes (RAI-ICD) and were derived (NIS 2019) and validated (NIS 2020). The primary analysis included survey-weighed discharge data among adults undergoing major surgical procedures. Additional external validation occurred by including all operative and nonoperative hospitalizations in the NIS (2020) and in a multihospital health care system (UPMC, 2021-2022). Data analysis was conducted from January to May 2023.

Exposures

RAI parameters and in-hospital mortality.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The association of RAI parameters with in-hospital mortality was calculated and weighted using logistic regression, generating an integerized RAI-ICD score. After initial validation, thresholds defining categories of frailty were selected by a full complement of test statistics. Rates of elective admission, length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality were compared across frailty categories. C statistics estimated model discrimination.

Results

RAI-ICD parameters were weighted in the 9 548 206 patients who were hospitalized (mean [SE] age, 55.4 (0.1) years; 3 742 330 male [weighted percentage, 39.2%] and 5 804 431 female [weighted percentage, 60.8%]), modeling in-hospital mortality (2.1%; 95% CI, 2.1%-2.2%) with excellent derivation discrimination (C statistic, 0.810; 95% CI, 0.808-0.813). The 11 RAI-ICD parameters were adapted to 323 ICD-10-CM codes. The operative validation population of 8 113 950 patients (mean [SE] age, 54.4 (0.1) years; 3 148 273 male [weighted percentage, 38.8%] and 4 965 737 female [weighted percentage, 61.2%]; in-hospital mortality, 2.5% [95% CI, 2.4%-2.5%]) mirrored the derivation population. In validation, the weighted and integerized RAI-ICD yielded good to excellent discrimination in the NIS operative sample (C statistic, 0.784; 95% CI, 0.782-0.786), NIS operative and nonoperative sample (C statistic, 0.778; 95% CI, 0.777-0.779), and the UPMC operative and nonoperative sample (C statistic, 0.860; 95% CI, 0.857-0.862). Thresholds defining robust (RAI-ICD <27), normal (RAI-ICD, 27-35), frail (RAI-ICD, 36-45), and very frail (RAI-ICD >45) strata of frailty maximized precision (F1 = 0.33) and sensitivity and specificity (Matthews correlation coefficient = 0.26). Adverse outcomes increased with increasing frailty.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this cohort study of hospitalized adults, the RAI-ICD was rigorously adapted, derived, and validated. These findings suggest that the RAI-ICD can extend the quantification of frailty to inpatient adult ICD-10-CM-coded patient care datasets.

Is LDL cholesterol associated with long-term mortality among primary prevention adults? A retrospective cohort study from a large healthcare system

OBJECTIVES

Among primary prevention-type adults not on lipid-lowering therapy, conflicting results exist on the relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and long-term mortality. We evaluated this relationship in a real-world evidence population of adults.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Electronic medical record data for adults, from 4 January 2000 through 31 December 2022, were extracted from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center healthcare system.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults without diabetes aged 50-89 years not on statin therapy at baseline or within 1 year and classified as primary prevention-type patients. To mitigate potential reverse causation, patients who died within 1 year or had baseline total cholesterol (T-C) ≤120 mg/dL or LDL-C <30 mg/dL were excluded.

MAIN EXPOSURE MEASURE

Baseline LDL-C categories of 30-79, 80-99, 100-129, 130-159, 160-189 or ≥190 mg/dL.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All-cause mortality with follow-up starting 365 days after baseline cholesterol measurement.

RESULTS

177 860 patients with a mean (SD) age of 61.1 (8.8) years and mean (SD) LDL-C of 119 (31) mg/dL were evaluated over a mean of 6.1 years of follow-up. A U-shaped relationship was observed between the six LDL-C categories and mortality with crude 10-year mortality rates of 19.8%, 14.7%, 11.7%, 10.7%, 10.1% and 14.0%, respectively. Adjusted mortality HRs as compared with the referent group of LDL-C 80-99 mg/dL were: 30-79 mg/dL (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.30), 100-129 mg/dL (0.87, 0.83-0.91), 130-159 mg/dL (0.88, 0.84-0.93), 160-189 mg/dL (0.91, 0.84-0.98) and ≥190 mg/dL (1.19, 1.06-1.34), respectively. Unlike LDL-C, both T-C/HDL cholesterol (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and triglycerides/HDL cholesterol ratios were independently associated with long-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Among primary prevention-type patients aged 50-89 years without diabetes and not on statin therapy, the lowest risk for long-term mortality appears to exist in the wide LDL-C range of 100-189 mg/dL, which is much higher than current recommendations. For counselling these patients, minimal consideration should be given to LDL-C concentration.

REMAP Periop: a randomised, embedded, multifactorial adaptive platform trial protocol for perioperative medicine to determine the optimal enhanced recovery pathway components in complex abdominal surgery patients within a US healthcare system

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has resulted in improved patient-centred outcomes and decreased costs. However, there is a lack of high-level evidence for many ERP elements. We have designed a randomised, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform perioperative medicine (REMAP Periop) trial to evaluate the effectiveness of several perioperative therapies for patients undergoing complex abdominal surgery as part of an ERP. This trial will begin with two domains: postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and regional/neuraxial analgesia. Patients enrolled in the trial will be randomised to arms within both domains, with the possibility of adding additional domains in the future.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In the PONV domain, patients are randomised to optimal versus supraoptimal prophylactic regimens. In the regional/neuraxial domain, patients are randomised to one of five different single-injection techniques/combination of techniques. The primary study endpoint is hospital-free days at 30 days, with additional domain-specific secondary endpoints of PONV incidence and postoperative opioid consumption. The efficacy of an intervention arm within a given domain will be evaluated at regular interim analyses using Bayesian statistical analysis. At the beginning of the trial, participants will have an equal probability of being allocated to any given intervention within a domain (ie, simple 1:1 randomisation), with response adaptive randomisation guiding changes to allocation ratios after interim analyses when applicable based on prespecified statistical triggers. Triggers met at interim analysis may also result in intervention dropping.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The core protocol and domain-specific appendices were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. A waiver of informed consent was obtained for this trial. Trial results will be announced to the public and healthcare providers once prespecified statistical triggers of interest are reached as described in the core protocol, and the most favourable interventions will then be implemented as a standardised institutional protocol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04606264.

Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19 : A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines and U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 changed frequently as different SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether early outpatient treatment with mAbs, overall and by mAb product, presumed SARS-CoV-2 variant, and immunocompromised status, is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days.

DESIGN

Hypothetical pragmatic randomized trial from observational data comparing mAb-treated patients with a propensity score-matched, nontreated control group.

SETTING

Large U.S. health care system.

PARTICIPANTS

High-risk outpatients eligible for mAb treatment under any EUA with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result from 8 December 2020 to 31 August 2022.

INTERVENTION

Single-dose intravenous mAb treatment with bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, sotrovimab, bebtelovimab, or intravenous or subcutaneous casirivimab-imdevimab administered within 2 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days among treated patients versus a nontreated control group (no treatment or treatment ≥3 days after SARS-CoV-2 test date).

RESULTS

The risk for hospitalization or death at 28 days was 4.6% in 2571 treated patients and 7.6% in 5135 nontreated control patients (risk ratio [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74]). In sensitivity analyses, the corresponding RRs for 1- and 3-day treatment grace periods were 0.59 and 0.49, respectively. In subgroup analyses, those receiving mAbs when the Alpha and Delta variants were presumed to be predominant had estimated RRs of 0.55 and 0.53, respectively, compared with 0.71 for the Omicron variant period. Relative risk estimates for individual mAb products all suggested lower risk for hospitalization or death. Among immunocompromised patients, the RR was 0.45 (CI, 0.28 to 0.71).

LIMITATIONS

Observational study design, SARS-CoV-2 variant presumed by date rather than genotyping, no data on symptom severity, and partial data on vaccination status.

CONCLUSION

Early mAb treatment among outpatients with COVID-19 is associated with lower risk for hospitalization or death for various mAb products and SARS-CoV-2 variants.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

MetfOrmin BenefIts Lower Extremities with Intermittent Claudication (MOBILE IC): randomized clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects over 230 million people worldwide and is due to systemic atherosclerosis with etiology linked to chronic inflammation, hypertension, and smoking status. PAD is associated with walking impairment and mobility loss as well as a high prevalence of coronary and cerebrovascular disease. Intermittent claudication (IC) is the classic presenting symptom for PAD, although many patients are asymptomatic or have atypical presentations. Few effective medical therapies are available, while surgical and exercise therapies lack durability. Metformin, the most frequently prescribed oral medication for Type 2 diabetes, has salient anti-inflammatory and promitochondrial properties. We hypothesize that metformin will improve function, retard the progression of PAD, and improve systemic inflammation and mitochondrial function in non-diabetic patients with IC.

METHODS

200 non-diabetic Veterans with IC will be randomized 1:1 to 180-day treatment with metformin extended release (1000 mg/day) or placebo to evaluate the effect of metformin on functional status, PAD progression, cardiovascular disease events, and systemic inflammation. The primary outcome is 180-day maximum walking distance on the 6-min walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes include additional assessments of functional status (cardiopulmonary exercise testing, grip strength, Walking Impairment Questionnaires), health related quality of life (SF-36, VascuQoL), macro- and micro-vascular assessment of lower extremity blood flow (ankle brachial indices, pulse volume recording, EndoPAT), cardiovascular events (amputations, interventions, major adverse cardiac events, all-cause mortality), and measures of systemic inflammation. All outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 90 and 180 days of study drug exposure, and 180 days following cessation of study drug. We will evaluate the primary outcome with linear mixed-effects model analysis with covariate adjustment for baseline 6MWT, age, baseline ankle brachial indices, and smoking status following an intention to treat protocol.

DISCUSSION

MOBILE IC is uniquely suited to evaluate the use of metformin to improve both systematic inflammatory responses, cellular energetics, and functional outcomes in patients with PAD and IC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The prospective MOBILE IC trial was publicly registered (NCT05132439) November 24, 2021.

Computer clinical decision support that automates personalized clinical care: a challenging but needed healthcare delivery strategy

How to deliver best care in various clinical settings remains a vexing problem. All pertinent healthcare-related questions have not, cannot, and will not be addressable with costly time- and resource-consuming controlled clinical trials. At present, evidence-based guidelines can address only a small fraction of the types of care that clinicians deliver. Furthermore, underserved areas rarely can access state-of-the-art evidence-based guidelines in real-time, and often lack the wherewithal to implement advanced guidelines. Care providers in such settings frequently do not have sufficient training to undertake advanced guideline implementation. Nevertheless, in advanced modern healthcare delivery environments, use of eActions (validated clinical decision support systems) could help overcome the cognitive limitations of overburdened clinicians. Widespread use of eActions will require surmounting current healthcare technical and cultural barriers and installing clinical evidence/data curation systems. The authors expect that increased numbers of evidence-based guidelines will result from future comparative effectiveness clinical research carried out during routine healthcare delivery within learning healthcare systems.

The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial

Background

Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab.

Methods

A learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.

Findings

Between March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30–1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72–1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab.

Interpretation

Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb.

Funding and registration

This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.

Association of Subcutaneous or Intravenous Administration of Casirivimab and Imdevimab Monoclonal Antibodies With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With COVID-19

IMPORTANCE

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment decreases hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, only intravenous administration has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials of treatment. Subcutaneous administration may expand outpatient treatment capacity and qualified staff available to administer treatment, but the association with patient outcomes is understudied.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is associated with reduced 28-day hospitalization and death compared with nontreatment among mAb-eligible patients and whether subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment is clinically and statistically similar to intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective cohort study evaluated high-risk outpatients in a learning health system in the US with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms from July 14 to October 26, 2021, who were eligible for mAb treatment under emergency use authorization. A nontreated control group of eligible patients was also studied.

EXPOSURES

Subcutaneous injection or intravenous administration of the combined single dose of 600 mg of casirivimab and 600 mg of imdevimab.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the 28-day adjusted risk ratio or adjusted risk difference for hospitalization or death. Secondary outcomes included 28-day adjusted risk ratios and differences in hospitalization, death, a composite end point of emergency department admission and hospitalization, and rates of adverse events. Among 1959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19, 969 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [16.7] years; 547 women [56.4%]) who received casirivimab and imdevimab subcutaneously had a 28-day rate of hospitalization or death of 3.4% (22 of 653 patients) compared with 7.0% (92 of 1306 patients) in nontreated controls (risk ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .002). Among 2185 patients treated with subcutaneous (n = 969) or intravenous (n = 1216; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [16.6] years; 672 women [54.4%]) casirivimab and imdevimab, the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 2.8% vs 1.7%, which resulted in an adjusted risk difference of 1.5% (95% CI, -0.6% to 3.5%; P = .16). Among all infusion patients, there was no difference in intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% CI, -3.5% to 5.0%) or need for mechanical ventilation (adjusted risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -5.8% to 5.5%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of high-risk outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms, subcutaneously administered casirivimab and imdevimab was associated with reduced hospitalization and death when compared with no treatment. These results provide preliminary evidence of potential expanded use of subcutaneous mAb treatment, particularly in areas that are facing treatment capacity and/or staffing shortages.

Hospital-free Days: A Pragmatic and Patient-centered Outcome for Trials Among Critically and Seriously Ill Patients

Hospital-free days (HFDs), alternatively known as "days alive and outside the hospital," is increasingly used as a primary or secondary outcome in randomized trials among critically and seriously ill patients. This novel outcome measure addresses an existing gap in the availability of patient-centered, reliably obtained outcome measures among patients with acute respiratory failure, advanced lung diseases, lung transplantation, and other serious and critical illnesses. Traditional outcomes such as mortality, organ-failure-free days, and longitudinal patient-reported measures have distinct drawbacks that limit their suitability as endpoints in trials of patients with serious illness, particularly those trials with pragmatic designs. By contrast, HFDs provides a summary measure of important health events and is easily calculated from administrative or electronic health record data, thereby balancing the goals of patient-centeredness and pragmatic measurement. However, before HFDs can be widely adopted as an endpoint in trials of patients with respiratory and critical illnesses, several questions must be addressed regarding the optimal definition, measurement, and analysis of HFDs. In this perspective, we outline important considerations relevant to the use of HFDs as a trial endpoint and suggest directions for further development of the measure.

Implementation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 (REMAP-COVID) trial in a US health system-lessons learned and recommendations

Background

The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 (REMAP-COVID) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation at the first US site, the UPMC health system, and offer recommendations for implementation at other sites.

Methods

To implement REMAP-COVID, we focused on six major areas: engaging leadership, trial embedment, remote consent and enrollment, regulatory compliance, modification of traditional trial management procedures, and alignment with other COVID-19 studies.

Results

We recommend aligning institutional and trial goals and sharing a vision of REMAP-COVID implementation as groundwork for learning health system development. Embedment of trial procedures into routine care processes, existing institutional structures, and the electronic health record promotes efficiency and integration of clinical care and clinical research. Remote consent and enrollment can be facilitated by engaging bedside providers and leveraging institutional videoconferencing tools. Coordination with the central institutional review board will expedite the approval process. Protocol adherence, adverse event monitoring, and data collection and export can be facilitated by building electronic health record processes, though implementation can start using traditional clinical trial tools. Lastly, establishment of a centralized institutional process optimizes coordination of COVID-19 studies.

Conclusions

Implementation of the REMAP-COVID trial within a large US healthcare system is feasible and facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration. This investment establishes important groundwork for future learning health system endeavors.

Trial registration

NCT02735707. Registered on 13 April 2016.