IMPORTANCE Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. OBJECTIVE To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. RESULTSThe trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, −8% [95% CI, −15% to −1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, −1% [95% CI, −8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Background Both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) have been recommended for acute respiratory failure in COVID-19. However, uncertainty exists regarding effectiveness and safety. Methods In the Recovery- Respiratory Support multi-center, three-arm, open-label, adaptive, randomized controlled trial, adult hospitalized patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, deemed suitable for treatment escalation, were randomly assigned to receive CPAP, HFNO, or conventional oxygen therapy. Comparisons were made between each intervention and conventional oxygen therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days. Results Over 13-months, 1272 participants were randomized and included in the analysis (380 (29.9%) CPAP; 417 (32.8%) HFNO; 475 (37.3%) conventional oxygen therapy). The need for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days was lower in the CPAP group (CPAP 137 of 377 participants (36.3%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 158 of 356 participants (44.4%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96, P=0.03). There was no difference between HFNO and conventional oxygen therapy (HFNO 184 of 414 participants (44.4%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 166 of 368 participants (45.1%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29, P=0.85). Conclusions CPAP, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, reduced the composite outcome of intubation or death within 30 days of randomisation in hospitalized adults with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. There was no effect observed, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, with the use of HFNO. (Funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research; ISRCTN 16912075).

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background and Objectives:Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management programme for people living with chronic headaches.Methods:A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Participants were aged ≥18 years with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache, with or without medication overuse headache.We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a two-day group education and self-management programme, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material.The primary outcome was headache related quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data.Results:Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomised 736 participants. Since only nine participants just had tension type headache our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of these 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analysed for primary outcome. There was no between group difference in HIT-6, (adjusted mean difference = -0·3, 95% CI -1·23 to 0·67), or headache days (0·9, 95% CI -0·29, 2·05), at 12 months. The CHESS intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI,£176 to £377) [USD383 (95%CI USD252 to USD539)] and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to .063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained.Discussion:These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management programme for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension type headache with episodic migraine.Registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry,ISRCTN7970810016th December 2015https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN79708100The first enrolment was 24th April 2017.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class III evidence that a brief group education and self-management program does not increase the probability of improvement in headache related quality of life in people with chronic migraine.

No abstract