Publications
227 results found
COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative, 2021, Mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19, Nature, Vol: 600, Pages: 472-477, ISSN: 0028-0836
The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-191,2, host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases3-7. They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.
Domingo P, Mur I, Mateo GM, et al., 2021, Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, JAMA, ISSN: 0098-7484
Importance Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm.Objective To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.Data Sources Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.Study Selection Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.Data Extraction and Synthesis In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.Results A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL
The REMAP-CAP Investigators, Derde LPG, 2021, Effectiveness of Tocilizumab, Sarilumab, and Anakinra for critically ill patients with COVID-19 The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Immune Modulation Therapy Domain Randomized Clinical Trial, Publisher: MedArxiv
<h4>BACKGROUND</h4> The interleukin-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab improves outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the effectiveness of other immune modulating agents is unclear. <h4>METHODS</h4> We evaluated four immunomodulatory agents in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult participants with COVID-19 were randomized to receive tocilizumab, sarilumab, anakinra, or standard care (control). In addition, a small group (n=21) of participants were randomized to interferon-β1a. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial used a Bayesian statistical model with pre-defined triggers for superiority, equivalence or futility. <h4>RESULTS</h4> Statistical triggers for equivalence between tocilizumab and sarilumab; and for inferiority of anakinra to the other active interventions were met at a planned adaptive analysis. Of the 2274 critically ill participants enrolled, 972 were assigned to tocilizumab, 485 to sarilumab, 378 to anakinra and 418 to control. Median organ support-free days were 7 (interquartile range [IQR] –1, 16), 9 (IQR –1, 17), 0 (IQR –1, 15) and 0 (IQR –1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab, anakinra and control, respectively. Median adjusted odds ratios were 1.46 (95%CrI 1.13, 1.87), 1.50 (95%CrI 1.13, 2.00), and 0.99 (95%CrI 0.74, 1.35) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and anakinra, yielding 99.8%, 99.8% and 46.6% posterior probabilities of superiority, respectively, compared to control. Median adjusted odds ratios for hospital survival were 1.42 (95%CrI 1.05,1.93), 1.51 (95%CrI 1.06, 2.20) and 0.97 (95%CrI 0.66, 1.40) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and anakinra respectively, compared to control, yielding 98.8%, 98.8% and 43.6% posterior probabilities of superiority, respectively, compared to control. All treatments appeared safe
Whittaker C, Watson OJ, Alvarez-Moreno C, et al., 2021, Understanding the Potential Impact of Different Drug Properties On SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Disease Burden: A Modelling Analysis
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods and Findings</jats:title><jats:p>We develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of
Estcourt LJ, 2021, Convalescent Plasma in Critically ill Patients with Covid-19
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>BACKGROUND</jats:title><jats:p>The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with Covid-19 is inconsistent. We hypothesized that convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adult patients with Covid-19.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>METHODS</jats:title><jats:p>In an ongoing adaptive platform trial, critically ill patients with confirmed Covid-19, defined as receiving intensive care-level organ support, were randomized to open-label convalescent plasma or not (i.e., control group). The primary end point was organ support-free days (i.e., days alive and free of ICU-based organ support) up to day 21. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model with predefined criteria for superiority or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>RESULTS</jats:title><jats:p>The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after pre-specified criteria for futility were met. At that time, 1084 participants had been randomized to convalescent plasma and 916 to no convalescent plasma (control). The median organ support-free days were 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) for the convalescent plasma group and 3 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) days for the control group. The median adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.97 (95% credible interval 0.83 to 1.15) and posterior probability of futility (OR < 1.2) was 99.4% for convalescent plasma compared to control. In-hospital mortality was 37.3% (401/1075) in convalescent plasma group, and 38.4% (347/904) in controls. The observed treatment effects were consistent across primary and secondary outcomes.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>CONCLUSIONS</jats:title><jats
Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Janiaud P, et al., 2021, Author Correction: Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials., Nature Communications, Vol: 12, Pages: 1-2, ISSN: 2041-1723
Patel BV, Haar S, Handslip R, et al., 2021, Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom, Intensive Care Medicine, Vol: 47, Pages: 549-565, ISSN: 0342-4642
PurposeThe trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions.MethodsWe included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget (https://www.CovidUK.ICU).ResultsData for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9–18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06–1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17–2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04–1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99–1.79
DeMerle KM, Angus DC, Baillie JK, et al., 2021, Sepsis subclasses: a framework for development and interpretation, Critical Care Medicine, Vol: 49, Pages: 748-759, ISSN: 0090-3493
Sepsis is defined as a dysregulated host response to infection that leads to life-threatening acute organ dysfunction. It afflicts approximately 50 million people worldwide annually and is often deadly, even when evidence-based guidelines are applied promptly. Many randomized trials tested therapies for sepsis over the past 2 decades, but most have not proven beneficial. This may be because sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterized by a vast set of clinical and biologic features. Combinations of these features, however, may identify previously unrecognized groups, or "subclasses" with different risks of outcome and response to a given treatment. As efforts to identify sepsis subclasses become more common, many unanswered questions and challenges arise. These include: 1) the semantic underpinning of sepsis subclasses, 2) the conceptual goal of subclasses, 3) considerations about study design, data sources, and statistical methods, 4) the role of emerging data types, and 5) how to determine whether subclasses represent "truth." We discuss these challenges and present a framework for the broader study of sepsis subclasses. This framework is intended to aid in the understanding and interpretation of sepsis subclasses, provide a mechanism for explaining subclasses generated by different methodologic approaches, and guide clinicians in how to consider subclasses in bedside care.
Gordon A, Mouncey P, Al-Beidh F, et al., 2021, Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically Ill patients with Covid-19, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol: 384, Pages: 1491-1502, ISSN: 0028-4793
BACKGROUNDThe efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.METHODSWe evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support–free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both.RESULTSBoth tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support–free days was 10 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, −1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleuki
Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Janiaud P, et al., 2021, Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials, Nature Communications, Vol: 12, Pages: 1-13, ISSN: 2041-1723
Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizabi
Zarychanski R, 2021, Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19 – Preliminary Report
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Thrombosis may contribute to morbidity and mortality in Covid-19. We hypothesized that therapeutic anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We conducted an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized, clinical trial. Patients with severe Covid-19, defined as the requirement for organ support with high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation, invasive ventilation, vasopressors, or inotropes, were randomized to receive therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis as per local usual care. The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned –1) and days free of organ support to day 21.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Therapeutic anticoagulation met the pre-defined criteria for futility in patients with severe Covid-19. The primary outcome was available for 1,074 participants (529 randomized to therapeutic anticoagulation and 545 randomized to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis). Median organ support-free days were 3 days (interquartile range –1, 16) in patients assigned to therapeutic anticoagulation and 5 days (interquartile range –1, 16) in patients assigned to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.70-1.08, posterior probability of futility [odds ratio<1.2] 99.8%). Hospital survival was comparable between groups (64.3% vs. 65.3%, adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% CrI 0.67-1.16). Major bleeding occurred in 3.1% of patients assigned to therapeutic anticoagulation and 2.4% of patients assigned to usual care pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.</jats:p></jats:sec
Ratcliff J, Nguyen D, Fish M, et al., 2021, Virological and serological characterization of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the UK: a special focus on variant detection
<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Treatment of COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma containing neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 is under investigation as a means of reducing viral loads, ameliorating disease outcomes, and reducing mortality. However, its efficacy might be reduced in those infected with the emerging B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. Here, we report the diverse virological characteristics of UK patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomised controlled trial.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected and quantified by real-time PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from study subjects within 48 hours of admission to intensive care unit. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 strain was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains by two novel typing methods detecting the B.1.1.7-associated D1118H mutation with allele-specific probes and by restriction site polymorphism (SfcI).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Findings</jats:title><jats:p>Of 1260 subjects, 90% were PCR-positive with viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs ranging from 72 international units [IUs]/ml to 1.7×10<jats:sup>11</jats:sup>IU/ml. Median viral loads were 45-fold higher in those who were seronegative for IgG antibodies (n=314; 28%) compared to seropositives (n=804; 72%), reflecting in part the latter group’s possible later disease stage on enrolment. Frequencies of B.1.1.7 infection increased from early November (<1%) to December 2020 (>60%). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 seronegative individuals infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher viral loads than seropositives (medians of 1.2×10<jats:sup>6</jats:sup>and 3.4 ×10<jats:sup>4</ja
Pairo-Castineira E, Clohisey S, Klaric L, et al., 2021, Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in Covid-19, Nature, Vol: 591, Pages: 92-98, ISSN: 0028-0836
Host-mediated lung inflammation is present,1 and drives mortality,2 in critical illness caused by Covid-19. Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development.3 Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study(GWAS) in 2244 critically ill Covid-19 patients from 208 UK intensive care units (ICUs). We identify and replicate novel genome-wide significant associations, on chr12q24.13 (rs10735079, p=1.65 [Formula: see text] 10-8) in a gene cluster encoding antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2, OAS3), on chr19p13.2 (rs2109069, p=2.3 [Formula: see text] 10-12) near the gene encoding tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2), on chr19p13.3 (rs2109069, p=3.98 [Formula: see text] 10-12) within the gene encoding dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9), and on chr21q22.1 (rs2236757, p=4.99 [Formula: see text] 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identify potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomisation we found evidence in support of a causal link from low expression of IFNAR2, and high expression of TYK2, to life-threatening disease; transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte/macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe Covid-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms, and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in Covid-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. Large-scale randomised clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice.
Angus DC, Gordon AC, Bauchner H, 2021, Emerging lessons from COVID-19 for the US clinical research enterprise, JAMA, Pages: E1-E3, ISSN: 0098-7484
Lall R, Mistry D, Skilton E, et al., 2021, Study into the reversal of septic shock with landiolol (beta blockade): STRESS-L Study protocol for a randomised trial., BMJ Open, Vol: 11, Pages: 1-10, ISSN: 2044-6055
INTRODUCTION: In 2013, a single-centre study reported the safe use of esmolol in patients with septic shock and tachycardia who required vasopressor therapy for more than 24 hours. Although not powered to detect a change in mortality, marked improvements were seen in survival (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; p<0.001). Beta blockers are one of the most studied groups of drugs but their effect in septic shock is poorly understood; proposed mechanisms include not only the modulation of cardiac function but also immunomodulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: STRESS-L is a randomised, open-label, non-blinded clinical trial which is enrolling a total of 340 patients with septic shock as defined by Sepsis-3 consensus definition and a tachycardia (heart rate ≥95 beats per minute (bpm)) after vasopressor treatment of at least 24 hours. Standard randomisation (1:1 ratio) allocates patients to receive usual care (according to international standards) versus usual care and a continuous landiolol infusion to reduce the heart rate between 80 and 94 bpm. The primary endpoint is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score over 14 days from entry into the trial and while in intensive care unit. Results will inform current clinical practice guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has clinical trial authorisation from the UK competent authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and has been approved by the East of England-Essex Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EE/0368).The results of the trial will be reported first to trial collaborators. The main report will be drafted by the trial coordinating team, and the final version will be agreed by the Trial Steering Committee before submission for publication, on behalf of the collaboration. REGISTRATION: The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) (Project Number: EME-14/150/85) and registered ISRCTN12600919 a
Mouncey PR, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K, et al., 2021, Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill peoble aged 65 and over; the 65 RCT, Health Technology Assessment, Vol: 25, Pages: I-114, ISSN: 1366-5278
Background:Vasopressors are administered to critical care patients to avoid hypotension, which is associated with myocardial injury, kidney injury and death. However, they work by causing vasoconstriction, which may reduce blood flow and cause other adverse effects. A mean arterial pressure target typically guides administration. An individual patient data meta-analysis (Lamontagne F, Day AG, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Hylands M, et al. Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:12–21) suggested that greater exposure, through higher mean arterial pressure targets, may increase risk of death in older patients.Objective:To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reduced vasopressor exposure through permissive hypotension (i.e. a lower mean arterial pressure target of 60–65 mmHg) in older critically ill patients.DesignA pragmatic, randomised clinical trial with integrated economic evaluation.SettingSixty-five NHS adult general critical care units.ParticipantsCritically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension.InterventionsIntervention – permissive hypotension (i.e. a mean arterial pressure target of 60–65 mmHg). Control (usual care) – a mean arterial pressure target at the treating clinician’s discretion.Main outcome measures:The primary clinical outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 90-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included receipt and duration of advanced respiratory and renal support, mortality at critical care and acute hospital discharge, and questionnaire assessment of cognitive decline and health-related quality of life at 90 days and 1 year.Results:Of 2600 patients randomised, 2463 (permissive hypotension, n = 1221; usual care, n = 1242) wer
Scheeren TWL, Bakker J, Kaufmann T, et al., 2021, Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock, Annals of Intensive Care, Vol: 11, ISSN: 2110-5820
BackgroundTreatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.MethodsFrom November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.ResultsA total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81–90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).ConclusionInotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers a
The REMAP-CAP Investigators, Gordon A, Mouncey P, et al., 2021, Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19 – Preliminary report, Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Background The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.Methods We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours of commencing organ support in an intensive care unit, were randomized to receive either tocilizumab (8mg/kg) or sarilumab (400mg) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned −1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with pre-defined triggers to declare superiority, efficacy, equivalence or futility.Results Tocilizumab and sarilumab both met the pre-defined triggers for efficacy. At the time of full analysis 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab and 402 to control. Median organ support-free days were 10 (interquartile range [IQR] −1, 16), 11 (IQR 0, 16) and 0 (IQR −1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and control, respectively. Relative to control, median adjusted odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 1.25, 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95%CrI 1.17, 2.91) for sarilumab, yielding >99.9% and 99.5% posterior probabilities of superiority compared with control. Hospital mortality was 28.0% (98/350) for tocilizumab, 22.2% (10/45) for sarilumab and 35.8% (142/397) for control. All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists.Conclusions In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in intensive care, treatment with the IL-6 receptor antagonists, tocilizumab and sarilumab, improved outcome, including survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02735707)Competing Interest StatementDr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network, non-financial suppo
Annane D, Pirracchio R, Billot L, et al., 2020, Effects of low-dose hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone in adults with septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data, BMJ Open, Vol: 10, ISSN: 2044-6055
Introduction The benefits and risks of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock have been investigated in numerous randomised controlled trials and trial-level meta-analyses. Yet, the routine use of this treatment remains controversial. To overcome the limitations of previous meta-analyses inherent to the use of aggregate data, we will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on the effect of hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone compared with placebo or usual care on 90-day mortality and other outcomes in patients with septic shock.Methods and analysis To assess the benefits and risks of hydrocortisone, with or without fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock, we will search major electronic databases from inception to September 2020 (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), complimented by a search for unpublished trials. The primary analysis will compare hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone to placebo or no treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Secondary analyses will compare hydrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), and hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days. We will conduct both one-stage IPDMA using mixed-effect models and machine learning with targeted maximum likelihood analyses. We will assess the risk of bias related to unshared data and related to the quality of individual trial.Ethics and dissemination This IPDMA will use existing data from completed randomised clinical trials and will comply with the ethical and regulatory requirements regarding data sharing for each of the component trials. The findings of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-review journal with straightforward policy for open access.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017062198.
Sinha P, Calfee CS, Cherian S, et al., 2020, Prevalence of ARDS phenotypes in critically-Ill COVID-19 patients: a prospective observational cohort study, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Vol: 8, Pages: 1209-1218, ISSN: 2213-2600
Rationale: In non-COVID-19 ARDS, two phenotypes, based on the severity of systemic inflammation, have been described. The hyperinflammatory phenotype is known to be associated with increased multi-organ failure and mortality. In this study, we aimed to identify these phenotypes in COVID-19 ARDS.Methods: Patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 at two U.K. ICUs were recruited to the study. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at baseline. Plasma samples were analysed for Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble tumour-necrosis-factor receptor-1 (sTNFR-1) using a novel point-of-care assay. A parsimonious regression classifier model was used to calculate the probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype in COVID-19 using IL-6, sTNFR-1 and sodium bicarbonate levels. Data from this cohort was compared to patients with ARDS recruited to a UK multicentre, randomised controlled trial of simvastatin (HARP-2).Results: 39 patients were recruited to the study. Median PaO2/FiO2 was 18 kpa (IQR: 15 – 21) and APACHE II score was 12 (IQR: 10 – 14.5). 17/39 patients (44%) had died by day 28 of the study. Patients that died were older and had lower PaO2/FiO2. The median probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype was 0.03 (IQR 0.01 – 0.2). Depending on the probability cut-off used to assign class, the prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype was between 10-21% (4-8/39) which is lower than in HARP-2 (186/539, 35%). Mortality in the hyperinflammatory phenotype was 5/8 (63%) and 12/31 (39%) in the hypoinflammatory phenotype. Compared to matched patients recruited to HARP-2, in COVID-19 levels of IL-6 were similar, whereas sTNFR-1 was significantly lower.Summary: In this exploratory analysis of 39 patients, ARDS due to COVID-19 is not associated with higher systemic inflammation and is associated with a lower prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype compared to historical ARDS data.
Wilkinson T, Dixon R, Page C, et al., 2020, ACCORD: A multicentre, seamless, phase 2 adaptive randomisation platform study to assess the efficacy and safety of multiple candidate agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, Trials, Vol: 21, Pages: 1-3, ISSN: 1745-6215
ObjectivesStage 1: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate agents as add-on therapies to standard of care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a screening stage.Stage 2: To confirm the efficacy of candidate agents selected on the basis of evidence from Stage 1 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an expansion stage.Trial designACCORD is a seamless, Phase 2, adaptive, randomised controlled platform study, designed to rapidly test candidate agents in the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate agent being included via its own sub-protocol, initially randomising equally between each candidate and a single contemporaneous SoC arm (which can adapt into 2:1). Candidate agents currently include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin. For each candidate a total of 60 patients will be recruited in Stage 1. If Stage 1 provides evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety the candidate will enter Stage 2 where a total of approximately 126 patients will be recruited into each study arm sub-protocol. Enrollees and outcomes will not be shared across the Stages; the endpoint, analysis and sample size for Stage 2 may be adjusted based on evidence from Stage 1. Additional arms may be added as new potential candidate agents are identified via candidate agent specific sub-protocols.ParticipantsThe study will include hospitalised adult patients (≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, that clinically meet Grades 3 (hospitalised – mild disease, no oxygen therapy), Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs) and 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen) of the WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 9-point category ordinal scale.Participants will be recruited from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.Intervention and comparatorComparator is current standard of care (SoC) for the treatment
Richards-Belle A, Mouncey PR, Grieve RD, et al., 2020, Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial, Journal of the Intensive Care Society, Vol: 21, Pages: 281-282, ISSN: 1751-1437
Vasodilatory shock is common in critically ill patients and vasopressors are a mainstay of therapy. A meta-analysis suggested that use of a higher, as opposed to a lower, mean arterial pressure target to guide titration of vasopressor therapy, could be associated with a higher risk of death in older critically ill patients. The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (a mean arterial pressure target of 60–65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial is conducted in 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult, general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. The 65 trial received favourable ethical opinion from the South Central – Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and approval from the Health Research Authority. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies REACT Working Group, Sterne JAC, Murthy S, et al., 2020, Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis., JAMA, Vol: 324, Pages: 1330-1341
Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns&q
Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Janiaud P, et al., 2020, Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19: an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aimed to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. Methods: Rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://osf.io/QESV4/">https://osf.io/QESV4/</jats:ext-link>). We systematically identified published and unpublished RCTs by September 14, 2020 (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, PubMed, Cochrane COVID-19 registry). All-cause mortality was extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses included patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Sixty-two trials were potentially eligible. We included 16 unpublished trials (1596 patients) and 10 publications/preprints (6317 patients). The combined summary OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine was 1.08 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.18; I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>=0%; 24 trials; 7659 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects.</jats:p></jats:sec><jat
Angus DC, Derde L, Al-Beidh F, et al., 2020, Effect of hydrocortisone on mortality and organ support in patients with severe COVID-19, JAMA, Vol: 324, Pages: 1317-1329, ISSN: 0098-7484
Importance Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.Objective To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.Interventions The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was organ support–free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned –1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).Results After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137)
Boyd SE, Vasudevan A, Moore LSP, et al., 2020, Validating a prediction tool to determine the risk of nosocomial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli infection in critically ill patients: A retrospective case-control study, Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, Vol: 22, Pages: 826-831, ISSN: 2213-7165
BACKGROUND: The Singapore GSDCS score was developed to enable clinicians predict the risk of nosocomial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (RGNB) infection in critically ill patients. We aimed to validate this score in a UK setting. METHOD: A retrospective case-control study was conducted including patients who stayed for more than 24h in intensive care units (ICUs) across two tertiary National Health Service hospitals in London, UK (April 2011-April 2016). Cases with RGNB and controls with sensitive Gram-negative bacilli (SGNB) infection were identified. RESULTS: The derived GSDCS score was calculated from when there was a step change in antimicrobial therapy in response to clinical suspicion of infection as follows: prior Gram-negative organism, Surgery, Dialysis with end-stage renal disease, prior Carbapenem use and intensive care Stay of more than 5 days. A total of 110 patients with RGNB infection (cases) were matched 1:1 to 110 geotemporally chosen patients with SGNB infection (controls). The discriminatory ability of the prediction tool by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in our validation cohort was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.81), which is comparable with the area under the curve of the derivation cohort (0.77). The GSDCS score differentiated between low- (0-1.3), medium- (1.4-2.3) and high-risk (2.4-4.3) patients for RGNB infection (P<0.001) in a UK setting. CONCLUSION: A simple bedside clinical prediction tool may be used to identify and differentiate patients at low, medium and high risk of RGNB infection prior to initiation of prompt empirical antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care setting.
Sterne JAC, Diaz J, Villar J, et al., 2020, Corticosteroid therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of randomized trials, Trials, Vol: 21, Pages: 1-3, ISSN: 1745-6215
ObjectivesPrimary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To examine whether the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization varies between subgroups related to treatment characteristics, disease severity at the time of randomization, patient characteristics, or risk of bias. To examine the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on serious adverse events.Study designProspective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Both placebo-controlled and open-label trials are eligible.ParticipantsHospitalised, critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.Intervention and comparatorIntervention groups will have received therapeutic doses of a steroid (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone) with IV or oral administration immediately after randomization.The comparator groups will have received standard of care or usual care or placebo.Main outcomeAll-cause mortality up to 28 days after randomization.Search methodsSystematic searching of clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT, the WHO ISRCTN registry, and the Chinese clinical trials registry. Additionally, research and WHO networks will be asked for relevant trials.Risk of bias assessmentsThese will be based on the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and will use structured information provided by the trial investigators on a form designed for this prospective meta-analysis.Summary of findingsWe will use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.Statistical analysesTrial investigators will provide data on the numbers of participants who did and did not experience each outcome according to intervention group, overall and in specified subgroups. We will conduct fixed-effect (primary analysis) and random-effects (Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and Hartung-Knapp adjustment) meta-analyses. We will quantify in
Russell JA, Gordon AC, Williams MD, et al., 2020, Vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit, Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine: pulmonology, critical care, allergy and immunology, infections, Vol: 42, Pages: 59-77, ISSN: 1069-3424
After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors—adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally becau
Marshall JC, Murthy S, Diaz J, et al., 2020, A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research, LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES, Vol: 20, Pages: E192-E197, ISSN: 1473-3099
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 817
, 2020, Global outbreak research: harmony not hegemony, LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES, Vol: 20, Pages: 770-772, ISSN: 1473-3099
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 22
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.