Nguyen, Nicholas V.

Introduction: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic cholestatic liver disease without approved medical therapies. We examined the efficacy and safety of oral vancomycin (OV) in those with PSC. Methods: In this phase 3, 18-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adults with PSC and a serum alkaline phosphatase (SAP) greater than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal to placebo or oral vancomycin (OV) with dosages ranging from 125-375 mg four times daily pending biochemical response. The primary endpoint was normalization of SAP. Results: Of the 82 patients who underwent randomization, 73 individuals had at least one outcome assessment. Individuals who withdrew early were less likely to rate their baseline health as excellent or very good (23.4% vs 54.5%, p<0.01) despite having similar PSC prognostic features to those who completed the study. SAP normalization rates were similar (5% placebo, 6.7% OV, p=1.00) after 18 months. Those who received OV had greater reduction in SAP (+1.2% placebo, -21.9% OV, p=0.03). There were no differences in the changes in either the Mayo PSC risk score (-0.1 placebo, -0.1 OV, p=0.88) or liver stiffness values (+0.1 kPa placebo, -4.0 kPa OV, p=0.15). Discoloration of the teeth and tongue was the most common side effect of OV (17.5%). Conclusions: OV was not associated with clinically significant reductions in markers of PSC disease severity. Impairments in quality of life may influence patient retention in clinical trials.

ABSTRACT Background The COVID‐19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges to hospital system and critical care resources, leading to significant changes to operations and patient care. There are limited national data on these changes and instances of unsanctioned deviations from patient care, yet understanding the COVID response is key to future preparedness efforts. We sought to understand how hospitals and states navigated scarcity during COVID‐19, particularly in the absence of a declaration of crisis standards of care. Methods Between February 2022 and September 2022 we conducted 34 interviews with 36 leaders of U.S. states' COVID‐19 planning and response efforts. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and verified. We analyzed interviews using iterative inductive thematic analysis for descriptions of resource scarcity and changes to policies and procedures to prevent rationing lifesaving care. Results Nearly all participants described equipment and personnel scarcity in their home institution or state during COVID‐19. Hospitals across regions and states developed formal and informal coordination processes for load and resource sharing in response to influxes of high‐acuity patients, avoiding formal rationing of lifesaving resources in many regions. Participants also described unsanctioned patient triage, early discharge, and patients counseled to accept less aggressive care (e.g., premature transition to hospice) in states that had not declared crisis standards of care. Conclusions Extending limited resources and inter‐institutional collaboration helped avoid formal rationing. Yet, patient care was unquestionably impacted due to scarcity, both real and perceived. Reports of using hospital triage protocols to deny patients lifesaving care outside of formally recognized crisis conditions and attempts to nudge patients to accept less‐resource‐intensive care are concerning. This may have had disproportionate effects on older adults, individuals with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minoritized groups. To avoid unsanctioned deviations from standard practice in future health emergencies, we recommend that transparent and equitable triage protocols are implemented with robust oversight.

Importance During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US states issued or revised pandemic preparedness plans guiding allocation of critical care resources during crises. State plans vary in the factors used to triage patients and have faced criticism from advocacy groups due to the potential for discrimination. Objective To analyze the role of comorbidities and long-term prognosis in state triage procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used data gathered from parallel internet searches for state-endorsed pandemic preparedness plans for the 50 US states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as states), which were conducted between November 25, 2021, and June 16, 2023. Plans available on June 16, 2023, that provided step-by-step instructions for triaging critically ill patients were categorized for use of comorbidities and prognostication. Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence and contents of lists of comorbidities and their stated function in triage and instructions to predict duration of postdischarge survival. Results Overall, 32 state-promulgated pandemic preparedness plans included triage procedures specific enough to guide triage in clinical practice. Twenty of these (63%) included lists of comorbidities that excluded (11 of 20 [55%]) or deprioritized (8 of 20 [40%]) patients during triage; one state’s list was formulated to resolve ties between patients with equal triage scores. Most states with triage procedures (21 of 32 [66%]) considered predicted survival beyond hospital discharge. These states proposed different prognostic time horizons; 15 of 21 (71%) were numeric (ranging from 6 months to 5 years after hospital discharge), with the remaining 6 (29%) using descriptive terms, such as long-term. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of state-promulgated critical care triage policies, most plans restricted access to scarce critical care resources for patients with listed comorbidities and/or for patients with less-than-average expected postdischarge survival. This analysis raises concerns about access to care during a public health crisis for populations with high burdens of chronic illness, such as individuals with disabilities and minoritized racial and ethnic groups.