Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.
Journal
Critical care medicine
ISSN: 1530-0293
Titre abrégé: Crit Care Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0355501
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2021
01 03 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
6
1
2021
medline:
5
3
2021
entrez:
5
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. International. About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. None. Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33400475
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004817
pii: 00003246-202103000-00011
pmc: PMC7892260
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
503-516Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 205214/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Dr. Tong is supported by The University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. Dr. Morris is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z). The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the article. Dr. Douglas is the principal investigator of clinical and translational research studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and coronavirus disease 2019 from National Institutes of Health, Roche Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech. Research grants are to his institution, Denver Health Medical Center. Dr. Povoa had received lecture fees from Orion, Pfizer, and Technofage. Dr. Azevedo received funding from Halex Istar and Baxter. Dr. Marshall received funding from AM Pharma, and he disclosed he is Cochair of the World Health Organization Working Group on Clinical Characterization and Management. Dr. Mer received funding from honoraria for serving on speakers bureaus and advisory boards as an invited “key opinion leader,” including from Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, and Sun. Dr. Morris received support from WT/Charity Open Access Fund. Dr. Morris’ institution received funding from WT. Dr. Smyth’s institution received funding from Vertex outside the submitted work; he disclosed having a patent “Alkyl quinolones as biomarkers of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and uses thereof”; and he received funding from Teva, Novartis, and Vertex, outside the submitted work. Dr. Simpson disclosed he is a coapplicant on independent grants with Becton Dickinson Biosciences and he is the Director of a National Institute for Health Research In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, which works with companies across the diagnostics industry. Dr. Turner’s institution received funding from Burnet Institute and United States Agency for International Development, and she received funding from World Health Organization. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Du RH, Liang LR, Yang CQ, et al. Predictors of mortality for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2: A prospective cohort study. Eur Respir J. 2020; 552000524
Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, et al. The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: Estimation and application. Ann Intern Med. 2020; 172:577–582
Weiss P, Murdoch DR. Clinical course and mortality risk of severe COVID-19. Lancet. 2020; 395:1014–1015
Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020; 395:497–506
Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: A descriptive study. Lancet. 2020; 395:507–513
Zhu J, Ji P, Pang J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 3062 COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020; 92:1902–1914
Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020; 323:1061–1069
Bhatraju PK, Ghassemieh BJ, Nichols M, et al. COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the Seattle region - case series. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382:2012–2022
Du Y, Tu L, Zhu P, et al. Clinical features of 85 fatal cases of COVID-19 from Wuhan. A retrospective observational study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020; 201:1372–1379
Keeley P, Buchanan D, Carolan C, et al. Sympton burden and clinical profile of COVID-19 deaths: A rapid systematic review and evidence summary. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020; 10:381–384
Argenziano MG, Bruce SL, Slater CL, et al. Characterization and clinical course of 1000 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York: Retrospective case series. BMJ. 2020; 369:m1996
Li LQ, Huang T, Wang YQ, et al. Clinical characteristics of 3,062 COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020; 92:1902–1914
Pan F, Ye T, Sun P, et al. Time course of lung changes at chest CT during recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Radiology. 2020; 295:715–721
Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region, Italy. JAMA. 2020; 323:1574–1581
Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020; 395:1054–1062
Barker-Davies RM, O’Sullivan O, Senaratne KPP, et al. The Stanford Hall consensus statement for post-COVID-19 rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med. 2020; 54:949–959
Tong A, Elliott JH, Azevedo LC, et al.; COVID-19-Core Outcomes Set (COS) Workshop Investigators. Core outcomes set for trials in people with coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Med. 2020; 48:1622–1635
Sarma P, Kaur H, Kumar H, et al. Virological and clinical cure in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020; 92:776–785
World Health Organization. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Available at: https://www.who.int/ictrp/en/ . Accessed April 20, 2020
WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characterisation and Management of COVID-19 Infection. A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; 20:e192–e197
COMET: The COMET Initiative. Core Outcome Set Developers’ Response to COVID-19 15th April 2020. Available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1538 . Accessed April 22, 2020
Evangelidis N, Tong A, Howell M, et al.; COVID-19-Core Outcomes Set (COS) Survey Investigators. International survey to establish prioritized outcomes for trials in people with coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Med. 2020; 48:1612–1621
Tong A. It Takes a Community to Establish Core Outcomes for Research in COVID-19. Available at: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/04/09/it-takes-a-community-to-establish-core-outcomes-for-research-in-covid-19/ . Accessed April 22, 2020
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0. Trials. 2017; 18:280
Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for reporting: The COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med. 2016; 13:e1002148
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Respiratory Failure. 2020Available at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/respiratory-failure . Accessed July 15, 2020
Vincent JL, Moreno R. Clinical review: Scoring systems in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2010; 14:207
Hutchings L, Watkinson P, Young JD, et al. Defining multiple organ failure after major trauma: A comparison of the Denver, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Marshall scoring systems. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017; 82:534–541
Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992; 101:1644–1655
Parshall MB, Schwartzstein RM, Adams L, et al.; American Thoracic Society Committee on Dyspnea. An official American Thoracic Society statement: Update on the mechanisms, assessment, and management of dyspnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435–452
Bass JB. Chapter 36. Dyspnea. In:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Recovery.. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recovery . Accessed May 30, 2020
Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016; 17:449
COMET: The COMET Initiative. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials. Available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org . Accessed June 9, 2020
Needham DM, Sepulveda KA, Dinglas VD, et al. Core outcome measures for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors. An international modified Delphi consensus study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017; 196:1122–1130
Turnbull AE, Sepulveda KA, Dinglas VD, et al. Core domains for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors: An international modified Delphi consensus study. Crit Care Med. 2017; 45:1001–1010
Riviello ED, Kiviri W, Twagirumugabe T, et al. Hospital incidence and outcomes of the acute respiratory distress syndrome using the Kigali modification of the Berlin definition. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016; 193:52–59
Kangelaris KN, Calfee CS, May AK, et al. Is there still a role for the lung injury score in the era of the Berlin definition ARDS? Ann Intensive Care. 2014; 4:4
Dorman S, Byrne A, Edwards A. Which measurement scales should we use to measure breathlessness in palliative care? A systematic review. Palliat Med. 2007; 21:177–191
Gallagher R, Roberts D. A systematic review of oxygen and airflow effect on relief of dyspnea at rest in patients with advanced disease of any course. J Pain Palliative Care Pharmacother. 2005; 18:3–15
Geddes EL, Reid WD, Crowe J, et al. Inspiratory muscle training in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review. Respir Med. 2005; 99:1440–1458
van ‘t Hul A, Kwakkel G, Gosselink R. The acute effects of noninvasive ventilatory support during exercise on exercise endurance an dyspnea in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review. J Cardio Rehabil. 2002; 22:290–297
Lundell S, Holmner Å, Rehn B, et al. Telehealthcare in COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis on physical outcomes and dyspnea. Respir Med. 2015; 109:11–26
Ryerson CJ, Donesky D, Pantilat SZ, et al. Dyspnea in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012; 43:771–782
Mahler DA, Wells CK. Evaluation of clinical methods for rating dyspnea. Chest. 1988; 93:580–586
Vincent JL, de Mendonça A, Cantraine F, et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: Results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 1998; 26:1793–1800
Ambrosino N, Scano G. Dyspnoea and its measurement. Breathe. 2004; 1:101–107
Simon PM, Schwartzstein RM, Weiss JW, et al. Distinguishable types of dyspnea in patients with shortness of breath. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1990; 142:1009–1014
Hashem MD, Nallagangula A, Nalamalapu S, et al. Patient outcomes after critical illness: A systematic review of qualitative studies following hospital discharge. Crit Care. 2016; 20:345
Harris D, Hayter M, Allender S. Improving the uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD: Qualitative study of experiences and attitudes. Br J Gen Pract. 2008; 58:703–710