Will Evidence-based Medicine Survive the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Critical Care Pandemic Preparation: Considerations and Lessons Learned from COVID-19

Pandemics, increases in disease incidence that affect multiple regions of the world, present huge challenges to health care systems and in particular to policymakers, public health authorities, clinicians, and all health care workers (HCWs). The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of severely ill patients, many of whom who have required hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The discipline of critical care is a vital and integral component of pandemic preparedness. Safe and effective critical care has the potential to improve outcomes, motivate individuals to seek timely medical attention, and attenuate the devastating sequelae of a severe pandemic. To achieve this, suitable critical care planning and preparation are essential.

Variation in Use of Repurposed Medications Among Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. From The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registry Investigator Group

IMPORTANCE

At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants.

RESULTS

Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40-4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23-6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

How cutting-edge trial design can assess outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have come to be accepted as the gold standard for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutics and interventions in medicine. In this paper, we aim to describe some evolving concepts associated with the design and conduct of RCTs and outline new approaches aiming to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

RECENT FINDINGS

A well-powered and performed RCT is usually a study involving several different centers from different geographical areas that enrolls a large number of patients in diverse clinical settings. Altogether, these features increase the generalizability of the study and make the rapid implementation of the findings more likely. However, this does not come without cost. Among several possible alternatives to conventional RCTs, the most important ones are related to the unit of randomization (individual vs. cluster), study design (conventional vs. adaptive), randomization scheme (fixed vs. response-adaptive), data collection (conventional case report forms vs. registry-embedded) and statistical approach (frequentist vs. Bayesian).

SUMMARY

While conventional RCTs remain the gold standard for generating evidence, new trial designs may be considered to reduce sample size and costs while improving trial efficiency and power. However, they raise new challenges for testing feasibility, conduct, ethical oversight and statistical analysis.

Prioritizing studies of COVID-19 and lessons learned

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 altered research in Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs in an unprecedented manner, leading to adjustments for COVID-19 research.

METHODS

CTSA members volunteered to conduct a review on the impact of CTSA network on COVID-19 pandemic with the assistance from NIH survey team in October 2020. The survey questions included the involvement of CTSAs in decision-making concerning the prioritization of COVID-19 studies. Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted to analyze the survey data.

RESULTS

60 of the 64 CTSAs completed the survey. Most CTSAs lacked preparedness but promptly responded to the pandemic. Early disruption of research triggered, enhanced CTSA engagement, creation of dedicated research areas and triage for prioritization of COVID-19 studies. CTSAs involvement in decision-making were 16.75 times more likely to create dedicated diagnostic laboratories (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17-129.39; P < 0.01). Likewise, institutions with internal funding were 3.88 times more likely to establish COVID-19 dedicated research (95% CI = 1.12-13.40; P < 0.05). CTSAs were instrumental in securing funds and facilitating establishment of laboratory/clinical spaces for COVID-19 research. Workflow was modified to support contracting and IRB review at most institutions with CTSAs. To mitigate chaos generated by competing clinical trials, central feasibility committees were often formed for orderly review/prioritization.

CONCLUSIONS

The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic emphasize the pivotal role of CTSAs in prioritizing studies and establishing the necessary research infrastructure, and the importance of prompt and flexible research leadership with decision-making capacity to manage future pandemics.