Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility.

Results

Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units

Background

Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes.

Methods

Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam.

Conclusions

The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

Determinants of Implementation of a Critical Care Registry in Asia: Lessons From a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

The Collaboration for Research, Implementation, and Training in Critical Care in Asia (CCA) is implementing a critical care registry to capture real-time data to facilitate service evaluation, quality improvement, and clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to examine stakeholder perspectives on the determinants of implementation of the registry by examining the processes of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability.

METHODS

This study is a qualitative phenomenological inquiry using semistructured interviews with stakeholders involved in registry design, implementation, and use in 4 South Asian countries. The conceptual model of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery guided interviews and analysis. Interviews were coded using the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings procedure and were analyzed based on the constant comparison approach.

RESULTS

A total of 32 stakeholders were interviewed. Analysis of stakeholder accounts identified 3 key themes: innovation-system fit; influence of champions; and access to resources and expertise. Determinants of implementation included data sharing, research experience, system resilience, communication and networks, and relative advantage and adaptability.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the registry has been possible due to efforts to increase the innovation-system fit, influence of motivated champions, and the support offered by access to resources and expertise. The reliance on individuals and the priorities of other health care actors pose a risk to sustainability.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.

Barriers to Quality Perioperative Care Delivery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Rapid Appraisal Study

BACKGROUND

Provision of timely, safe, and affordable surgical care is an essential component of any high-quality health system. Increasingly, it is recognized that poor quality of care in the perioperative period (before, during, and after surgery) may contribute to significant excess mortality and morbidity. Therefore, improving access to surgical procedures alone will not address the disparities in surgical outcomes globally until the quality of perioperative care is addressed. We aimed to identify key barriers to quality perioperative care delivery for 3 "Bellwether" procedures (cesarean delivery, emergency laparotomy, and long-bone fracture fixation) in 5 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

Ten hospitals representing secondary and tertiary facilities from 5 LMICs were purposefully selected: 2 upper-middle income (Colombia and South Africa); 2 lower-middle income (Sri Lanka and Tanzania); and 1 lower income (Uganda). We used a rapid appraisal design (pathway mapping, ethnography, and interviews) to map out and explore the complexities of the perioperative pathway and care delivery for the Bellwether procedures. The framework approach was used for data analysis, with triangulation across different data sources to identify barriers in the country and pattern matching to identify common barriers across the 5 LMICs.

RESULTS

We developed 25 pathway maps, undertook >30 periods of observation, and held >40 interviews with patients and clinical staff. Although the extent and impact of the barriers varied across the LMIC settings, 4 key common barriers to safe and effective perioperative care were identified: (1) the fragmented nature of the care pathways, (2) the limited human and structural resources available for the provision of care, (3) the direct and indirect costs of care for patients (even in health systems for which care is ostensibly free of charge), and (4) patients' low expectations of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified key barriers to effective perioperative care in LMICs. Addressing these barriers is important if LMIC health systems are to provide safe, timely, and affordable provision of the Bellwether procedures.

Perioperative Care Pathways in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Safe and effective care for surgical patients requires high-quality perioperative care. In high-income countries (HICs), care pathways have been shown to be effective in standardizing clinical practice to optimize patient outcomes. Little is known about their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative mortality is substantially higher.

METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis to identify and describe studies in peer-reviewed journals on the implementation or evaluation of perioperative care pathways in LMICs. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, WHO Global Index, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and SciELO alongside citation searching. Descriptive statistics, taxonomy classifications and framework analyses were used to summarize the setting, outcome measures, implementation strategies, and facilitators and barriers to implementation.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included. The majority of pathways were set in tertiary hospitals in lower-middle-income countries and were focused on elective surgery. Only six studies were assessed as high quality. Most pathways were adapted from international guidance and had been implemented in a single hospital. The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were cost of interventions and lack of available resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies from a geographically diverse set of low and lower-middle-income countries demonstrate increasing use of perioperative pathways adapted to resource-poor settings, though there is sparsity of literature from low-income countries, first-level hospitals and emergency surgery. As in HICs, addressing patient and clinician beliefs is a major challenge in improving care. Context-relevant and patient-centered research, including qualitative and implementation studies, would make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.

Objective

To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021).

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions.

Results

The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system

The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.

Implementing an intensive care registry in India: preliminary results of the case-mix program and an opportunity for quality improvement and research

Background: The epidemiology of critical illness in India is distinct from high-income countries. However, limited data exist on resource availability, staffing patterns, case-mix and outcomes from critical illness. Critical care registries, by enabling a continual evaluation of service provision, epidemiology, resource availability and quality, can bridge these gaps in information. In January 2019, we established the Indian Registry of IntenSive care to map capacity and describe case-mix and outcomes. In this report, we describe the implementation process, preliminary results, opportunities for improvement, challenges and future directions.

Methods: All adult and paediatric ICUs in India were eligible to join if they committed to entering data for ICU admissions. Data are collected by a designated representative through the electronic data collection platform of the registry. IRIS hosts data on a secure cloud-based server and access to the data is restricted to designated personnel and is protected with standard firewall and a valid secure socket layer (SSL) certificate. Each participating ICU owns and has access to its own data. All participating units have access to de-identified network-wide aggregate data which enables benchmarking and comparison.

Results: The registry currently includes 14 adult and 1 paediatric ICU in the network (232 adult ICU beds and 9 paediatric ICU beds). There have been 8721 patient encounters with a mean age of 56.9 (SD 18.9); 61.4% of patients were male and admissions to participating ICUs were predominantly unplanned (87.5%). At admission, most patients (61.5%) received antibiotics, 17.3% needed vasopressors, and 23.7% were mechanically ventilated. Mortality for the entire cohort was 9%.  Data availability for demographics, clinical parameters, and indicators of admission severity was greater than 95%.

Conclusions: IRIS represents a successful model for the continual evaluation of critical illness epidemiology in India and provides a framework for the deployment of multi-centre quality improvement and context-relevant clinical research.

Donut rush to laparoscopy: post-polypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome and the 'pseudo-donut' sign

Colonoscopic polypectomy is a routine procedure with the potential for rare but well-known complications, including perforation and bleeding. Post-polypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome (PPES) is a less recognized cause of abdominal pain following this procedure. However, it is important to diagnose PPES in order to avoid unnecessary intervention. We present the case of a patient with abdominal pain after polypectomy. The patient underwent an unnecessary diagnostic laparoscopy on the basis of misinterpreted radiological findings. Her CT scan demonstrated the "donut" sign that was suggestive of ileocaecal intussusception. This case highlights the importance of recognizing PPES as a possible cause for abdominal pain after colonoscopic polypectomy and that it may also present with a "pseudodonut" sign on CT scan. It also demonstrates the importance of communicating and then integrating full clinical details with radiological findings when formulating a differential diagnosis.

Implementing an intensive care registry in India: preliminary results of the case-mix program and an opportunity for quality improvement and research

Background: The epidemiology of critical illness in India is distinct from high-income countries. However, limited data exist on resource availability, staffing patterns, case-mix and outcomes from critical illness. Critical care registries, by enabling a continual evaluation of service provision, epidemiology, resource availability and quality, can bridge these gaps in information. In January 2019, we established the Indian Registry of IntenSive care to map capacity and describe case-mix and outcomes. In this report, we describe the implementation process, preliminary results, opportunities for improvement, challenges and future directions. Methods: All adult and paediatric ICUs in India were eligible to join if they committed to entering data for ICU admissions. Data are collected by a designated representative through the electronic data collection platform of the registry. IRIS hosts data on a secure cloud-based server and access to the data is restricted to designated personnel and is protected with standard firewall and a valid secure socket layer (SSL) certificate. Each participating ICU owns and has access to its own data. All participating units have access to de-identified network-wide aggregate data which enables benchmarking and comparison. Results: The registry currently includes 14 adult and 1 paediatric ICU in the network (232 adult ICU beds and 9 paediatric ICU beds). There have been 8721 patient encounters with a mean age of 56.9 (SD 18.9); 61.4% of patients were male and admissions to participating ICUs were predominantly unplanned (87.5%). At admission, most patients (61.5%) received antibiotics, 17.3% needed vasopressors, and 23.7% were mechanically ventilated. Mortality for the entire cohort was 9%.  Data availability for demographics, clinical parameters, and indicators of admission severity was greater than 95%. Conclusions: IRIS represents a successful model for the continual evaluation of critical illness epidemiology in India and provides a framework for the deployment of multi-centre quality improvement and context-relevant clinical research.

Impact of the primary trauma care course in the Kongo Central province of the Democratic Republic of Congo over two years

BACKGROUND

The two-day Primary Trauma Care (PTC) course covers the management of injured patients and takes into account resource constraints experienced in low and middle-income countries. Currently, there are no studies on the long-term impact of the course on knowledge or attitudes. The PTC course was introduced in Kongo Central Central province in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as part of a series of interventions to improve trauma care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of PTC on the trauma knowledge, confidence and attitudes regarding trauma care of healthcare workers (HCWs) in the DRC over two years.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) and confidence matrix results of PTC attendees prior to the course, immediately after, and at the time of follow up at either 12, 16 or 24 months. A semi-structured questionnaire was additionally administered at follow up to explore the effect of PTC on key areas of trauma learning: skills, attitudes and relationships.

RESULTS

A total of 59/80 HCWs who attended the PTC course completed follow-up questionnaires. Participants were predominantly male (42/59) with a mean age of 41.6 years. There was an increase of 4.8 in MCQ scores and 9.6 in confidence scores (p < 0.01) post-PTC. MCQ scores were maintained 24 months after the course, whereas confidence scores declined (p = 0.03). At follow-up, 36/59 participants reported that equipment was not available for procedures and 52/59 felt more could be done to better manage injured patients locally. All participants believed trauma services were important and felt that the course contributed to improving the management of trauma patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that knowledge gained from the PTC course was maintained over two years, although individuals felt less clinically confident. A refresher course may be appropriate within two years to improve relatively low overall knowledge scores and participants' confidence. Whilst resource constraints within the DRC may hinder trauma care development, the PTC course has equipped attendees with the knowledge, skills, confidence and attitudes to improve trauma service development in their region.