Lung transplantation (LTx) is an important treatment option for many end-stage lung diseases. The goal of LTx is to restore pulmonary physiology (gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics) towards normal, so that LTx recipients can experience an improved quality of life and live significantly longer. An optimized approach to donor-to-recipient size matching is a strategy to increase opportunities for successful transplants and optimize outcomes. In this review we discuss relevant pulmonary gas exchange and respiratory systems mechanics principles as a framework to optimize donor-to-recipient size matching and LTX-recipient management. The predicted total lung capacity (pTLC) is a refined estimate of organ size utilizing regression equations to calculate lung size based on height, sex and age. In general, irrespective of the underlying lung disease the chest cavity is "reverse remolding" back towards normal size in most recipients. The parameter that can reflect the sizing goal to restore physiology towards normal is the recipient pTLC. A pragmatic size matching metric is the donor-to-recipient pTLC-ratio. Significant undersizing based on the pTLC-ratio is a risk factor for complications and lower LTx survival. If significant changes to the LTx candidate's chest cavity size occur (as can occur in severe restrictive lung disease or severe emphysema), or if the chest cavity cannot "reverse remodel" towards normal, it is important to consider additional donor-to-recipient sizing metrics. In addition to the recipient's measured actual total lung capacity imaging-based metrics can be considered. Chest X-ray and computer tomography based volumetric analyses can provide information facilitating a successful LTx.

ImportanceAcetaminophen (paracetamol) has many pharmacological effects that might be beneficial in sepsis, including inhibition of cell-free hemoglobin-induced oxidation of lipids and other substrates.ObjectiveTo determine whether acetaminophen increases days alive and free of organ dysfunction in sepsis compared with placebo.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPhase 2b randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted from October 2021 to April 2023 with 90-day follow-up. Adults with sepsis and respiratory or circulatory organ dysfunction were enrolled in the emergency department or intensive care unit of 40 US academic hospitals within 36 hours of presentation.InterventionPatients were randomized to 1 g of acetaminophen intravenously every 6 hours or placebo for 5 days.Main Outcome and MeasuresThe primary end point was days alive and free of organ support (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and kidney replacement therapy) to day 28. Treatment effect modification was evaluated for acetaminophen by prerandomization plasma cell-free hemoglobin level higher than 10 mg/dL.ResultsOf 447 patients enrolled (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years, 51% female, mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 5.4 [SD, 2.5]), 227 were randomized to acetaminophen and 220 to placebo. Acetaminophen was safe with no difference in liver enzymes, hypotension, or fluid balance between treatment arms. Days alive and free of organ support to day 28 were not meaningfully different for acetaminophen (20.2 days; 95% CI, 18.8 to 21.6) vs placebo (19.6 days; 95% CI, 18.2 to 21.0; P = .56; difference, 0.6; 95% CI, −1.4 to 2.6). Among 15 secondary outcomes, total, respiratory, and coagulation SOFA scores were significantly lower on days 2 through 4 in the acetaminophen arm as was the rate of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (2.2% vs 8.5% acetaminophen vs placebo; P = .01; difference, −6.3; 95% CI, −10.8 to −1.8). There was no significant interaction between cell-free hemoglobin levels and acetaminophen.Conclusions and RelevanceIntravenous acetaminophen was safe but did not significantly improve days alive and free of organ support in critically ill sepsis patients.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04291508

Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four "PICO questions" (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.

Importance:Early observations suggested that COVID-19 pneumonia had a higher mortality rate than other causes of pneumonia. Objective:To compare outcomes between mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia due to COVID-19 (March 2020 to June 2021) and other etiologies (July 2016 to December 2019). Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins Healthcare System among adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation in the first 2 weeks of hospitalization. Clinical, laboratory, and mechanical ventilation data were extracted from admission to hospital discharge or death. Exposures:Pneumonia due to COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 90-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to liberation from mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, static respiratory system compliance, and ventilatory ratio. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, proportional hazards regression, and doubly robust regression were used in propensity score-matched sets to compare clinical outcomes. Results:Overall, 719 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 442 [61.5%] were male; 460 [64.0%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 253 [35.2%] were White) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and 1127 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [15.8] years; 586 [52.0%] were male; 459 [40.7%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 655 [58.1%] were White) with severe non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In unadjusted analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.41), longer time on mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), and lower compliance (32.0 vs 28.4 mL/kg PBW/cm H2O; P < .001) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In propensity score-matched analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were equally likely to die within 90 days as those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.35; P = .85), had similar respiratory system compliance (mean difference, 1.82 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI, -1.53 to 5.17 mL/cm H2O; P = .28) and ventilatory ratio (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.11; P = .52), but had lower rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had somewhat lower rates of being discharged from the hospital alive at 90 days (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01) than those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia; however, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia had similar mortality rates as patients with other causes of severe pneumonia but longer times to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation use in COVID-19 pneumonia should follow the same evidence-based guidelines as for any pneumonia.

Background Sepsis and associated organ failures confer substantial morbidity and mortality. Xanthine oxidoreductase (XOR) is implicated in the development of tissue oxidative damage in a wide variety of respiratory and cardiovascular disorders including sepsis and sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the XDH gene (encoding XOR) might influence susceptibility to and outcome in patients with sepsis. Methods We genotyped 28 tag SNPs in XDH gene in the CELEG cohort, including 621 European American (EA) and 353 African American (AA) sepsis patients. Serum XOR activity was measured in a subset of CELEG subjects. Additionally, we assessed the functional effects of XDH variants utilizing empirical data from different integrated software tools and datasets. Results Among AA patients, six intronic variants (rs206805, rs513311, rs185925, rs561525, rs2163059, rs13387204), in a region enriched with regulatory elements, were associated with risk of sepsis ( P < 0.008–0.049). Two out of six SNPs (rs561525 and rs2163059) were associated with risk of sepsis-associated ARDS in an independent validation cohort (GEN-SEP) of 590 sepsis patients of European descent. Two common SNPs (rs1884725 and rs4952085) in tight linkage disequilibrium (LD) provided strong evidence for association with increased levels of serum creatinine ( P adjusted <0.0005 and 0.0006, respectively), suggesting a role in increased risk of renal dysfunction. In contrast, among EA ARDS patients, the missense variant rs17011368 (I703V) was associated with enhanced mortality at 60-days ( P < 0.038). We found higher serum XOR activity in 143 sepsis patients (54.5 ± 57.1 mU/mL) compared to 31 controls (20.9 ± 12.4 mU/mL, P = 1.96 × 10 − 13 ). XOR activity was associated with the lead variant rs185925 among AA sepsis patients with ARDS ( P < 0.005 and P adjusted < 0.01). Multifaceted functions of prioritized XDH variants, as suggested by various functional annotation tools, support their potential causality in sepsis. Conclusions Our findings suggest that XOR is a novel combined genetic and biochemical marker for risk and outcome in patients with sepsis and ARDS.

BACKGROUND:Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited.METHODS:In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed.RESULTS:A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

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.

Rationale: Mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has decreased after the adoption of lung-protective strategies. Lower VT, lower driving pressure (DP), lower respiratory rates (RR), and higher end-expiratory pressure have all been suggested as key components of lung protection strategies. A unifying theoretical explanation has been proposed that attributes lung injury to the energy transfer rate (mechanical power) from the ventilator to the patient, calculated froma combination of several ventilator variables. Objectives: To assess the impact of mechanical power on mortality in patients with ARDS as compared with that of primary ventilator variables such as the DP, VT, and RR. Methods: We obtained data on ventilatory variables and mechanical power from a pooled database of patients with ARDS who had participated in six randomized clinical trials of protective mechanical ventilation and one large observational cohort of patients with ARDS. The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days or 60 days. Measurements and Main Results: We included 4,549 patients (38% women; mean age, 55 +/- 23 yr). The average mechanical power was 0.32 +/- 0.14 J . min(-1) . kg(-1) of predicted body weight, the Delta P was 15.0 +/- 5.8 cm H2O, and the RR was 25.7 +/- 7.4 breaths/min. The driving pressure, RR, and mechanical power were significant predictors of mortality in adjusted analyses. The impact of the Delta P on mortality was four times as large as that of the RR. Conclusions: Mechanical power was associated with mortality during controlled mechanical ventilation in ARDS, but a simpler model using only the DP and RR was equivalent.

Clinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention-the starting point for delivery of "All the right care, but only the right care," an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 2 Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD *See also p. 1779. Dr. Brower received funding from Allergan, Diffusion, Sanofi, and TEVA Boehringer; he received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Bergmann has disclosed that he does not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Oxygen supplementation is one of the most common interventions in critically ill patients. Despite over a century of data suggesting both beneficial and detrimental effects of supplemental oxygen, optimal arterial oxygenation targets in adult patients remain unclear. Laboratory animal studies have consistently showed that exposure to a high FiO2 causes respiratory failure and early death. Human autopsy studies from the 1960s purported to provide histologic evidence of pulmonary oxygen toxicity in the form of diffuse alveolar damage. However, concomitant ventilator-induced lung injury and/or other causes of acute lung injury may explain these findings. Although some observational studies in general populations of critically adults showed higher mortality in association with higher oxygen exposures, this finding has not been consistent. For some specific populations, such as those with cardiac arrest, studies have suggested harm from targeting supraphysiologic PaO2 levels. More recently, randomized clinical trials of arterial oxygenation targets in narrower physiologic ranges were conducted in critically ill adult patients. Although two smaller trials came to opposite conclusions, the two largest of these trials showed no differences in clinical outcomes in study groups that received conservative versus liberal oxygen targets, suggesting that either strategy is reasonable. It is possible that some strategies are of benefit in some subpopulations, and this remains an important ongoing area of research. Because of the ubiquity of oxygen supplementation in critically ill adults, even small treatment effects could have a large impact on a global scale.

Rationale: If the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is causally determined by driving pressure rather than by Vt, then the effect of ventilation with lower Vt on mortality would be predicted to vary according to respiratory system elastance (Ers). Objectives: To determine whether the mortality benefit of ventilation with lower Vt varies according to Ers. Methods: In a secondary analysis of patients from five randomized trials of lower- versus higher-Vt ventilation strategies in ARDS and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the posterior probability of an interaction between the randomized Vt strategy and Ers on 60-day mortality was computed using Bayesian multivariable logistic regression. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,096 patients available for analysis, 416 (38%) died by Day 60. The posterior probability that the mortality benefit from lower-Vt ventilation strategies varied with Ers was 93% (posterior median interaction odds ratio, 0.80 per cm H2O/[ml/kg]; 90% credible interval, 0.63-1.02). Ers was classified as low (<2 cm H2O/[ml/kg], n = 321, 32%), intermediate (2-3 cm H2O/[ml/kg], n = 475, 46%), and high (>3 cm H2O/[ml/kg], n = 224, 22%). In these groups, the posterior probabilities of an absolute risk reduction in mortality ≥ 1% were 55%, 82%, and 92%, respectively. The posterior probabilities of an absolute risk reduction ≥ 5% were 29%, 58%, and 82%, respectively. Conclusions: The mortality benefit of ventilation with lower Vt in ARDS varies according to elastance, suggesting that lung-protective ventilation strategies should primarily target driving pressure rather than Vt.

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the NHLBI. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising preclinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data," causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, preclinical disease modeling, and understanding of recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state of, research priorities for, and future directions in adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including 1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; 2) optimizing preclinical models by incorporating comorbidities, cointerventions, and organ support; 3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and 4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Objectives: To determine the association between mean airway pressure and 90-day mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and to compare the predictive ability of mean airway pressure compared with inspiratory plateau pressure and driving pressure. Design: Prospective observational cohort. Setting: Five ICUs in Lima, Peru. Subjects: Adults requiring invasive mechanical ventilation via endotracheal tube for acute respiratory failure. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of potentially eligible participants (n = 1,500), 65 (4%) were missing baseline mean airway pressure, while 352 (23.5%) were missing baseline plateau pressure and driving pressure. Ultimately, 1,429 participants were included in the analysis with an average age of 59 +/- 19 years, 45% female, and a mean Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio of 248 +/- 147 mm Hg at baseline. Overall, 90-day mortality was 50.4%. Median baseline mean airway pressure was 13 cm H2O (interquartile range, 10-16 cm H2O) in participants who died compared to a median mean airway pressure of 12 cm H2O (interquartile range, 10-14 cm H2O) in participants who survived greater than 90 days (p < 0.001). Mean airway pressure was independently associated with 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.38 for difference comparing the 75th to the 25th percentile for mean airway pressure; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74) after adjusting for age, sex, baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, baseline Pao(2)/Fio(2) (modeled with restricted cubic spline), baseline positive end-expiratory pressure, baseline tidal volume, and hospital site. In predicting 90-day mortality, baseline mean airway pressure demonstrated similar discriminative ability (adjusted area under the curve = 0.69) and calibration characteristics as baseline plateau pressure and driving pressure. Conclusions: In a multicenter prospective cohort, baseline mean airway pressure was independently associated with 90-day mortality in mechanically ventilated participants and predicts mortality similarly to plateau pressure and driving pressure. Because mean airway pressure is readily available on all mechanically ventilated patients and all ventilator modes, it is a potentially more useful predictor of mortality in acute respiratory failure.

Importance Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

The ORCHID (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease) trial is a multicenter, blinded, randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This document provides the rationale and background for the trial and highlights key design features. We discuss five novel challenges to the design and conduct of a large, multicenter, randomized trial during a pandemic, including 1) widespread, off-label use of the study drug before the availability of safety and efficacy data; 2) the need to adapt traditional procedures for documentation of informed consent during an infectious pandemic; 3) developing a flexible and robust Bayesian analysis incorporating significant uncertainty about the disease, outcomes, and treatment; 4) obtaining indistinguishable drug and placebo without delaying enrollment; and 5) rapidly obtaining administrative and regulatory approvals. Our goals in describing how the ORCHID trial progressed from study conception to enrollment of the first patient in 15 days are to inform the development of other high-quality, multicenter trials targeting COVID-19. We describe lessons learned to improve the efficiency of future clinical trials, particularly in the setting of pandemics. The ORCHID trial will provide high-quality, clinically relevant data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04332991).

Objective The primary objective of our study was to determine the quality of life (QOL) using a talking tracheostomy tube. Methods Randomized clinical trial (NCT2018562). Adult intensive care unit patients who were mechanically ventilated, awake, alert, attempting to communicate, English-speaking, and could not tolerate one-way speaking valve were included. Intervention comprised a Blue Line Ultra Suctionaid (BLUSA) talking tracheostomy tube (Smiths Medical, Dublin, OH, US). Outcome measures included QOL scores measured using Quality of Life in Mechanically Ventilated Patients (QOL-MV) and Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL), Speech Intelligibility Test (SIT) scores, independence, and satisfaction. Results The change in V-RQOL scores from pre- to postintervention was higher among patients using a BLUSA (Smiths Medical) compared to those who did not (P = 0.001). The QOL-MV scores from pre- to postintervention were significantly higher among patients who used a BLUSA (Smiths Medical) compared to patients who did not use BLUSA (Smiths Medical) or a one-way speaking valve (P = 0.04). SIT scores decreased by 6.4 points for each 1-point increase in their Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (P = 0.04). The overall QOL-MV scores correlated moderately with the overall V-RQOL scores (correlation coefficient = 0.59). Cronbach alpha score for overall QOL-MV was 0.71. Seventy-three percent of the 22 intervention patients reported the ability to use the BLUSA (Smiths Medical) with some level of independence, whereas 41% reported some level of satisfaction with the use of BLUSA (Smiths Medical). The lengths of stay was longer in the intervention group. Conclusion Our study suggests that BLUSA (Smiths Medical) talking tracheostomy tube improves patient-reported QOL in mechanically ventilated patients with a tracheostomy who cannot tolerate cuff deflation. Level of Evidence I Laryngoscope, 2019