A Prospective, Descriptive Study on Awake Self-prone in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Purpose/Aims: Healthcare workers internationally continue to look for innovative ways to improve patient outcomes and optimize resource utilization during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Proning awake, nonintubated patients has been suggested as a potential intervention in critical care. The aim of this study is to provide a multidisciplinary approach to safely perform awake self-prone positioning in the acute care setting. Design: This is a prospective, descriptive study. Method: Patients with COVID-19 were screened and enrolled within 48 hours of a positive test. After approval from the primary team, patients were provided education materials by a multidisciplinary team on the self-prone intervention. Visual cues were placed in the room. Patients were requested to maintain a diary of hours of prone positioning. Patients' baseline characteristics, admission vitals, daily oxygen requirements, and level of care were collected. Results: Of 203 patients screened, 31 were enrolled. No pressure-related injury or catheter (intravenous or urinary) displacement was identified. Eighty-one percent of patients spent less than 8 hours a day in prone positioning. Among patients enrolled, none required invasive ventilation or died. Conclusions: Awake self-proning can be performed safely in patients given a diagnosis of COVID-19 in the acute care setting with a multidisciplinary team

Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept Monotherapy vs Bevacizumab First Followed by Aflibercept If Needed for Diabetic Macular Edema

ImportanceThe DRCR Retina Network Protocol AC showed no significant difference in visual acuity outcomes over 2 years between treatment with aflibercept monotherapy and bevacizumab first with switching to aflibercept for suboptimal response in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). Understanding the estimated cost and cost-effectiveness of these approaches is important.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of aflibercept monotherapy vs bevacizumab-first strategies for DME treatment.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis economic evaluation was a preplanned secondary analysis of a US randomized clinical trial of participants aged 18 years or older with center-involved DME and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/50 to 20/320 enrolled from December 15, 2017, through November 25, 2019.InterventionsAflibercept monotherapy or bevacizumab first, switching to aflibercept in eyes with protocol-defined suboptimal response.Main Outcomes and MeasuresBetween February and July 2022, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over 2 years was assessed. Efficacy and resource utilization data from the randomized clinical trial were used with health utility mapping from the literature and Medicare unit costs.ResultsThis study included 228 participants (median age, 62 [range, 34-91 years; 116 [51%] female and 112 [49%] male; 44 [19%] Black or African American, 60 [26%] Hispanic or Latino, and 117 [51%] White) with 1 study eye. The aflibercept monotherapy group included 116 participants, and the bevacizumab-first group included 112, of whom 62.5% were eventually switched to aflibercept. Over 2 years, the cost of aflibercept monotherapy was $26 504 (95$24 796-$28 212) vs$13 929 (95% CI, $11 984-$15 874) for the bevacizumab-first group, a difference of $12 575 (95$9987-$15 163). The aflibercept monotherapy group gained 0.015 (95$837 077 per QALY gained compared with the bevacizumab-first group. Aflibercept could be cost-effective with an ICER of $100 000 per QALY if the price per dose were$305 or less or the price of bevacizumab was $1307 per dose or more.Conclusions and RelevanceVariability in individual needs will influence clinician and patient decisions about how to treat specific eyes with DME. While the bevacizumab-first group costs still averaged approximately$14 000 over 2 years, this approach, as used in this study, may confer substantial cost savings on a societal level without sacrificing visual acuity gains over 2 years compared with aflibercept monotherapy.</jats:sec

Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy

ImportanceAnti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53) without CI-DME.InterventionsEyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDevelopment of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years.ResultsAmong participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P &amp;amp;lt; .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was −2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and −2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, −0.5 letters [97.5% CI, −2.3 to 1.3]; P = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with NPDR but without CI-DME, at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333</jats:sec