Background In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care... Show moreBackground In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19. Thrombo-inflammatory response in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may last beyond the first 30 days.Methods This article reports the effects of atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus placebo on 90-day clinical and functional outcomes from INSPIRATION-S, a double-blind multicenter randomized trial of adult ICU patients with COVID-19. The main outcome for this prespecified study was a composite of adjudicated venous/arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause mortality. Functional status was assessed with the Post-COVID-19 Functional Scale.Results In the primary analysis, 587 patients were included (age: 57 [Q1–Q3: 45–68] years; 44% women). By 90-day follow-up, the main outcome occurred in 96 (33.1%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 113 (38.0%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60–1.05, p = 0.11). Atorvastatin in patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset was associated with reduced 90-day hazard for the main outcome (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42–0.86, p interaction = 0.02). Atorvastatin use was associated with improved 90-day functional status, although the upper bound CI crossed 1.0 (ORordinal: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41–1.01, p = 0.05).Conclusion Atorvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the 90-day composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous/arterial thrombosis. However, the point estimates do not exclude a potential clinically meaningful treatment effect, especially among patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset (NCT04486508). Show less
Background Contemporary pulmonary embolism (PE) research, in many cases, relies on data from electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative databases that use International Classification of... Show moreBackground Contemporary pulmonary embolism (PE) research, in many cases, relies on data from electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative databases that use International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Natural language processing (NLP) tools can be used for automated chart review and patient identification. However, there remains uncertainty with the validity of ICD-10 codes or NLP algorithms for patient identification.Methods The PE-EHR+ study has been designed to validate ICD-10 codes as Principal Discharge Diagnosis, or Secondary Discharge Diagnoses, as well as NLP tools set out in prior studies to identify patients with PE within EHRs. Manual chart review by two independent abstractors by predefined criteria will be the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values will be determined. We will assess the discriminatory function of code subgroups for intermediate- and high-risk PE. In addition, accuracy of NLP algorithms to identify PE from radiology reports will be assessed.Results A total of 1,734 patients from the Mass General Brigham health system have been identified. These include 578 with ICD-10 Principal Discharge Diagnosis codes for PE, 578 with codes in the secondary position, and 578 without PE codes during the index hospitalization. Patients within each group were selected randomly from the entire pool of patients at the Mass General Brigham health system. A smaller subset of patients will also be identified from the Yale-New Haven Health System. Data validation and analyses will be forthcoming.Conclusions The PE-EHR+ study will help validate efficient tools for identification of patients with PE in EHRs, improving the reliability of efficient observational studies or randomized trials of patients with PE using electronic databases. Show less
BackgroundThe Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire is the first disease-specific scale for assessing the quality of life in patients with a history of pulmonary embolism (PE)... Show moreBackgroundThe Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire is the first disease-specific scale for assessing the quality of life in patients with a history of pulmonary embolism (PE).ObjectivesTo assess the cross-cultural validity and reliability of the disease-specific PEmb-QoL questionnaire.MethodsThe Persian version was prepared through the forward and backward translation of the English questionnaire. Six months after the diagnosis of acute PE, consecutive Persian-speaking patients were asked to complete the PEmb-QoL, the generic 36-item Short Form (SF-36) questionnaires and undertake a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Acceptability was assessed via item missing rate, reproducibility by the test-retest method, and internal consistency reliability by Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients. Convergence validity was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation between scores of PEmb-QoL, SF-36, and 6MWT. The questionnaire structure was evaluated through exploratory factor analysis.ResultsNinety-six patients with a confirmed diagnosis of PE completed the questionnaires. The Persian version of PEmb-QoL had good internal consistency (α = 0.95, 3-factor ω = 0.96), inter-item correlation (0.3–0.62), item-total correlation (0.38–0.71), reproducibility (test-retest ICC with 25 participants = 0.92–0.99), and good discriminant validity. Convergence validity was confirmed by the moderate-to-high correlations between PEmb-QoL and SF-36 scores, and a good correlation between the “limitation in daily activities” dimension of the PEmb-QoL questionnaire and 6MWT results. Exploratory factor analysis suggested a 3-component structure with functional (items 1h, 4b-5d, 6, 8, 9i, and 9j), symptoms (1b-h, 7, and 8), and emotional (5a, 6, and 9a-h) components.ConclusionThe Persian version of the PEmb-QoL questionnaire is valid and reliable for measuring the disease-specific quality of life in patients with PE. Show less
Introduction: Patients affected with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suffer from a wide range of sequelae, from limited airway diseases to multiple organ failure. These sequelae... Show moreIntroduction: Patients affected with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suffer from a wide range of sequelae, from limited airway diseases to multiple organ failure. These sequelae may create exercise limitation, impair the daily activity and thus impact the mental health and the social life. However, the extent of functional limitations and depressive symptoms are understudied especially in patients with COVID-19 after intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization. Methods: The Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) was a clinical trial that randomized ICU patients with COVID-19 to intermediate-dose vs standard-dose anticoagulation. In the current study, we assessed the interval change in 30-day and 90-day functional limitations based on the post-COVID-19 functional status scale (PCFS) and depressive symptoms based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) in the trial participants. We also assessed the effect of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation on the functional outcomes and depressive symptoms. Results: Of 600 randomized patients in INSPIRATION, 375 (age: 62 years; 42% women) participated in the functional status study. 195 patients died during the 90-day follow up (191 by day 30). Among survivors, between day 30 and day 90, the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe functional limitation (PCSF grade 3-or-4) decreased from 20.0% to 4.8% (P <0.001) and PHQ-2 >= 3 decreased from 25.5% to 16.6% (P = 0.05). The proportion of patients with no functional limitations (PCFS grade 0) increased (4.2% to 15.4%, P<0.001). Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not impact the 90-day proportion of patients with PCFS grade 3-or-4 (5.3% vs 4.2%; odds ratio (OR), 1.20, [95% CI, 0.46-3.11]; P = 0.80) or PHQ-2 >= 3 (17.9% vs 15.3%; OR, 1.14, [95% CI, 0.79-1.65]; P = 0.14), with similar results when accounting for study center. Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, functional limitations and depressive symptoms were common at 30-day follow-up and had some improvement by 90-day follow-up among survivors. Intermediate-dose compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not improve functional outcomes. Show less
