Dataset Information

Remote Hospital Care for Recovering COVID-19 Patients Using Telemedicine: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To ensure availability of hospital beds and improve COVID-19 patients' well-being during the ongoing pandemic, hospital care could be offered at home. Retrospective studies show promising results of deploying remote hospital care to reduce the number of days spent in the hospital, but the beneficial effect has yet to be established.

Methods

We conducted a single centre, randomised trial from January to June 2021, including hospitalised COVID-19 patients who were in the recovery stage of the disease. Hospital care for the intervention group was transitioned to the patient's home, including oxygen therapy, medication and remote monitoring. The control group received in-hospital care as usual. The primary endpoint was the number of hospital-free days during the 30 days following randomisation. Secondary endpoints included health care consumption during the follow-up period and mortality.

Results

A total of 62 patients were randomised (31 control, 31 intervention). The mean difference in hospital-free days was 1.7 (26.7 control vs. 28.4 intervention, 95% CI of difference -0.5 to 4.2, p = 0.112). In the intervention group, the index hospital length of stay was 1.6 days shorter (95% CI -2.4 to -0.8, p < 0.001), but the total duration of care under hospital responsibility was 4.1 days longer (95% CI 0.5 to 7.7, p = 0.028).

Conclusion

Remote hospital care for recovering COVID-19 patients is feasible. However, we could not demonstrate an increase in hospital-free days in the 30 days following randomisation. Optimising the intervention, timing, and identification of patients who will benefit most from remote hospital care could improve the impact of this intervention.

SUBMITTER: van Goor HMR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8706980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Decentralised services using outreach clinics or modern technology are methods to reduce both patient transports and costs to the healthcare system. Telemedicine consultations via videoconference are one such modality. Before new technologies are implemented, it is important to investigate both the quality of care given and the economic impact from the use of this new technology. The aim of this clinical trial was to study the quality of planned remote orthopaedic consultations by help of videoconference.We performed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel groups: video-assisted remote consultations at a regional medical centre (RMC) as an intervention versus standard consultation in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN) as a control. The participants were patients referred to or scheduled for a consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. The orthopaedic surgeons evaluated each consultation they performed by completing a questionnaire. The primary outcome measurement was the difference in the sum score calculated from this questionnaire, which was evaluated by the non-inferiority of the intervention group. The study design was based on the intention to treat principle. Ancillary analyses regarding complications, the number of consultations per patient, operations, patients who were referred again and the duration of consultations were performed.Four-hundred patients were web-based randomised. Of these, 199 (98 %) underwent remote consultation and 190 (95 %) underwent standard consultation. The primary outcome, the sum score of the specialist evaluation, was significantly lower (i.e. 'better') at UNN compared to RMC (1.72 versus 1.82, p?=?0.0030). The 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in score (0.05, 0.17) was within the non-inferiority margin. The orthopaedic surgeons involved evaluated 98 % of the video-assisted consultations as 'good' or 'very good'. In the ancillary analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups.This study supports the argument that it is safe to offer video-assisted consultations for selected orthopaedic patients. We did not find any serious events related to the mode of consultation. Further assessments of the economic aspects and patient satisfaction are needed before we can recommend its wider application.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00616837.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Telemedicine consultations using real-time videoconferencing has the potential to improve access and quality of care, avoid patient travels, and reduce health care costs. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of an orthopedic videoconferencing service between the University Hospital of North Norway and a regional medical center in a remote community located 148 km away. METHODS:An economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial of 389 patients (559 consultations) referred to the hospital for an orthopedic outpatient consultation was conducted. The intervention group (199 patients) was randomized to receive video-assisted remote orthopedic consultations (302 consultations), while the control group (190 patients) received standard care in outpatient consultation at the hospital (257 consultations). A societal perspective was adopted for calculating costs. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Resource use and health outcomes were collected alongside the trial at baseline and at 12 months follow-up using questionnaires, patient charts, and consultation records. These were valued using externally collected data on unit costs and QALY weights. An extended sensitivity analysis was conducted to address the robustness of the results. RESULTS:This study showed that using videoconferencing for orthopedic consultations in the remote clinic costs less than standard outpatient consultations at the specialist hospital, as long as the total number of patient consultations exceeds 151 per year. For a total workload of 300 consultations per year, the annual cost savings amounted to €18,616. If costs were calculated from a health sector perspective, rather than a societal perspective, the number of consultations needed to break even was 183. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed that providing video-assisted orthopedic consultations to a remote clinic in Northern Norway, rather than having patients travel to the specialist hospital for consultations, is cost-effective from both a societal and health sector perspective. This conclusion holds as long as the activity exceeds 151 and 183 patient consultations per year, respectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616837; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00616837 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/762dZPoKX).

Project description:BackgroundIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg-800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12-24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76-0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12-1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77-0·92; p<0·0001).InterpretationIn hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundAspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89-1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02-1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90-1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%).InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98-1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87-1·03; p=0·24).InterpretationIn patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:IntroductionEpilepsy is a chronic condition requiring consistent follow-up aimed at seizure control, and monitoring of anti-seizure medication (ASM) levels and side effects. Telemedicine (TM) offers invaluable support to patient follow-up, guaranteeing the prompt availability of a team of experts for persons with epilepsy (PWE) widely distributed across the country. Although many health institutions have endorsed the use of TM, robust data on effectiveness, safety and costs of TM applied to epilepsy are lacking. TELEmedicine for EPIlepsy Care (TELE-EPIC) will evaluate the effectiveness of video consultation (VC) via TM compared with usual care (UC) for the monitoring of PWE (TELE-EPIC_RCT). Moreover, TELE-EPIC will apply an innovative Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling (VAMS) device for quantitation of ASM through finger prick blood sampling as an alternative to venipuncture sampling (TELE-EPIC_VAMS).Methods and analysisTELE-EPIC_RCT is a multicentre, open, pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial prospectively including adult and paediatric outpatients with established diagnosis of epilepsy consecutively attending the Epilepsy Centres of Bologna and Rome, respectively. The primary outcome is the non-inferiority of VC on seizure control compared with UC after an 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are adherence to treatment, ASM-related adverse events, quality of life, mood disorders, patient and caregiver satisfaction, safety and costs. TELE-EPIC_VAMS is a cross-validation study for blood ASM quantitation through a novel, VAMS-based device, comparing (1) VAMS versus plasma samples (reference standard method); and (2) nurse-collected versus self-collected blood by VAMS device.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the local ethics committee (349-2019-SPER-AUSLBO). Complete information about the state of project, relevant events and results will be regularly updated on the project's webpage on ClinicalTrials.gov. The project's results and data on the potential impact of TM in epilepsy will be disseminated on social media. A closeout meeting will be convened for the communication and dissemination of the project, highlighting its main achievements and impacts.Trial registration numberNCT04496310.

Project description:BackgroundSocietal measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 (eg, lockdown and contact restrictions) have been associated with decreased health and well-being. A multitude of prepandemic studies identified the beneficial effects of physical exercise on both physical and mental health.ObjectiveWe report on the feasibility of a remote physical exercise intervention and its stress-buffering potential in 2 untrained cohorts: a pre-COVID-19 cohort that completed the intervention in 2019 and a lockdown cohort that started the intervention shortly before pandemic-related restrictions were implemented.MethodsIn a randomized controlled trial, participants were assigned to either an intervention group (IG; pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=7 and lockdown cohort: n=9) or a control group (CG; pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=6 and lockdown cohort: n=6). IG participants received weekly individualized training recommendations delivered via web-based support. The intervention period was initially planned for 8 weeks, which was adhered to in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (mean 8.3, SD 0.5 weeks) but was extended to an average of 17.7 (SD 2.0) weeks in the lockdown cohort. Participants' health parameters were assessed before and after the intervention: aerobic capacity was measured as peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) via cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Depressive symptoms were scored via the depression subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory-18.ResultsDropout rates were low in both cohorts in the IG (pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=0, 0% and lockdown cohort: n=2, 16.7%) and the CG (pre-COVID-19 cohort: n=0, 0% and lockdown cohort: n=2, 20%). The mean adherence to the training sessions of the IG for both cohorts was 84% (pre-COVID-19 cohort: SD 5.5% and lockdown cohort: SD 11.6%). Aligned rank transform ANOVAs in the lockdown cohort indicated deterioration of VO2peak and depressive symptoms from before to after the intervention in the CG but no longitudinal changes in the IG. Analyses in the pre-COVID-19 cohort revealed significant increases in VO2peak for the IG compared to the CG (P=.04) but no intervention effects on depressive symptoms.ConclusionsWith low dropout rates and high adherence, the remote intervention was feasible for healthy adults under regular conditions and in the face of pandemic-related stressors. Moreover, our results hint at a stress-buffering effect as well as a buffering of a lockdown-induced deconditioning of remote physical exercise interventions in the pandemic scenario, which can be used in future studies to overcome equally stressful periods of life. However, due to limited statistical power, these findings should be replicated in similar scenarios.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00018078; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00018078.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lopinavir-ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity, preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir-ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS:In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. FINDINGS:Between March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir-ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir-ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91-1·17; p=0·60). Results were consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91-1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99-1·20; p=0·092). INTERPRETATION:In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir-ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. FUNDING:Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79).InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.