key: cord-0977318-8h1s2mp2 authors: Friedman, Eugene; Franzone, John; Ko, Emily Ray; Corey, Kristin; Mock, Jason; Alavian, Naseem; Schwartz, Adam; Drummond, M. Bradley; Suber, Tomeka; Linstrum, Kelsey; Bain, William; Castiblanco, Saramaria Afanador; Zak, Martin; Zaeh, Sandra; Gupta, Ishaan; Damarla, Mahendra; Punjabi, Naresh M. title: Rationale and design of the prone position and respiratory outcomes in non-intubated COVID-19 patients: The “PRONE” study date: 2021-08-13 journal: Contemp Clin Trials DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106541 sha: 0c5b9f08e0d71d56f1b5fe45fe948e4362cd0042 doc_id: 977318 cord_uid: 8h1s2mp2 While benefits of prone position in mechanically-ventilated patients have been well-described, a randomized-control trial to determine the effects of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously-breathing patients with an acute pneumonia has not been previously conducted. Prone Position and Respiratory Outcomes in Non-Intubated COVID-19 PatiEnts: the “PRONE” Study (PRONE) was conducted in non-intubated hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia as defined by respiratory rate > 20/min or an oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) ≤ 93% without supplemental oxygen [1]. The PRONE trial was designed to investigate the effects of prone positioning on need for escalation in respiratory support, as defined by need for transition to a higher acuity level of care, increased fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), or the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary objectives were to assess the duration of effect of prone positioning on respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate and SpO2, as well as other outcomes such as time to discharge or transition in level of care. supplemental oxygen [2] . Many of these patients have severe disease that evolves into acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) characterized by severe hypoxemia, with as high as 20% requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Of these, more than half require initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and case mortality can reach as high as 40% [3] . In the context of high morbidity, mortality, limited hospital capacity, equipment, and personnel during the pandemic, there emerged a new imperative to explore ways to mitigate the effect and progression of hypoxemic respiratory failure in early COVID-19. The first report on prone positioning to improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS appeared in 1976 [4] . Improved gas exchange when prone is the result of optimization in lung recruitment and ventilation-perfusion matching, and it has been hypothesized that prone positioning may also help to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury. Although prone positioning was used for several years to improve oxygenation in patients requiring IMV for management of ARDS, it was not until 2013 that prone positioning was convincingly demonstrated to reduce mortality [5] . While the value of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS is compelling, less is known about its effects in spontaneously breathing, non-intubated patients. Case reports and small retrospective reviews revealed possible improvements in oxygenation in this group; however, effects of prone positioning on respiratory rate, work of breathing, and clinical outcomes were not defined [6, 7] . Following the emergence of COVID-19, there have been a number of reports investigating the effects of prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 not requiring IMV. Prone positioning along with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and restrictive fluid strategy were prescribed in China's Jiangsu Province during the Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak as attempts at empiric salvage therapy, with reported improvements in oxygenation and reportedly low rates of J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f need for IMV [8] . Several groups thereafter have reported on efforts to study prone positioning in awake COVID-19 patients [8] [9] [10] [11] . In a cohort of 10 patients with impending respiratory failure, prone position resulted in a significant improvement in oxygen saturation in as little as one hour [12] . More importantly, prone positioning led to a significant decrease in work of breathing, as evidenced by decreased respiratory rate and patient reports of subjective improvement. Furthermore, a majority of the patients avoided IMV. While this and other reports demonstrate that prone positioning improves oxygenation and respiratory rates [10, [13] [14] [15] , a conclusive change in clinical outcomes has remained elusive, except for a small case series [16] . Further, it remains unknown whether prone positioning produces durable improvements in oxygen requirements, reduced need for escalation to ICU care, or decreases the need for IMV. Another potential challenge of awake prone positioning is lack of control over tidal volume. It has previously been shown in a meta-analysis that after stratification for tidal volume (V T ), the studies where V T was not controlled failed to demonstrate a significant decrease in risk of death [17] . In spontaneously breathing patients where tidal volume cannot be controlled, patients may experience what has been referred to as patient self-inflicted lung injury [18] . It is possible that awake prone position could attenuate this process by increasing FRC and reducing transpulmonary pressures. To address these knowledge gaps, a randomized clinical trial was implemented to examine prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 who had not yet progressed to requiring IMV. All patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia were eligible for screening through the first day of their hospitalization. The patient's attending physician or study personnel at each site identified patients admitted with COVID-19. The study team then reviewed the medical records to assess eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria detailed in Table 1 . Briefly, inclusion criteria included a documented positive test for SARS-CoV2 and age ≥18 years. Preexisting advanced lung disease, need for mechanical ventilation, inability to independently change position, or contraindication to prone positioning due to factors such as weakness, recent surgery, severe obesity, or decreased alertness were considered exclusionary. If all the enrollment criteria were met, the patient was approached for informed consent. All participants J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f provided written informed consent prior to enrollment. Screened patients at each site were entered into a password protected database which was maintained by the coordinating center. After eligibility was confirmed, patients were then randomized to prone positioning on a prescribed schedule versus usual care. The randomization schedule was developed by the coordinating center. The block size was concealed from the recruiting sites, and randomization was performed after informed consent. Eligible patients were assigned to one of the two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was blocked within each clinical site using block sizes of four. Only the principal investigator at coordinating center (MD) had access to the randomization table. The coordinating center principal investigator was not involved in recruitment or enrollment. Patients who were randomized to the intervention arm were prescribed a schedule of prone positioning summarized in Table 2 . Adherence to the schedule was maximized by a wallposted schedule, nursing reminders, standardized text messaging during hours of wakefulness, or a combination thereof, based on patient preferences and site logistics. Maintenance of the prone position during scheduled hours was not mandated, and patients were not woken to change position. Study participants randomized to the usual care arm were allowed to change position per patient and treating physician preference, including the prone position. Standard clinical data (including radiological studies, vital signs, laboratory studies) as well as respiratory data (including method of oxygen supplementation, flow rate, and FiO 2 ) were collected on each patient. Additionally, each enrolled patient had all study related respiratory monitoring as shown in Figure 1 . For the first 24 hours after enrollment, continuous pulse oximetry monitoring with a Nonin pulse oximeter was conducted, as well as positional and J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f respiratory rate and effort monitoring with a NoxA1 monitor. NoxA1 is a portable digital recording system that allows for continuous monitoring of pulse oximetry (via a wireless sensor) and body position, as well as measurement of respiratory effort based on chest and abdomen movement using RIP bands. Despite adjustments in signal acquisition to optimize battery life, one AA battery for the NoxA1 typically lasted ~19hr. All patients also underwent position monitoring with a MonBaby wireless sensor that was affixed to the patient's chest or clothing, starting at enrollment and continuing throughout the hospital admission (Figure 1 ). The MonBaby sensor is a small 3-axis accelerometer that monitors body position and can estimate respiratory rate. The de-identified and encrypted data from the MonBaby sensor was wirelessly transmitted to a remote data repository via a host mobile device. The low power consumption allowed utilization of this system to perform extended-duration monitoring of body position on contrast to the NoxA1. The primary endpoint was escalation in respiratory-related care defined as: intubation; transition to HFNC; increase in fraction of inspired oxygen; decision by the primary team to prone patient; and/or transfer from a lower to a higher level acuity of care (e.g. medical floor to intermediate care unit [IMC] or ICU) ( Table 3) . Secondary endpoints included time from hospital admission to change in respiratory-related care; amount of change, time to change, and duration of change in respiratory rate, SpO 2 and FiO 2 ; and time to discharge or transition to lower acuity of care. Missing data will be assumed to be missing completely at random. The primary endpoint is the composite endpoint of respiratory-related escalation of care. Sample size projections of accrual and ICU transfers were based on early data from New York State, which indicated that nearly 25% of the patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f required ICU-level care [19] . Based on these data, it was assumed that the rate of escalation in respiratory-related care as a composite outcome would be higher than 25%. It was assumed that at least 40% of patients in the usual care arm will require some escalation in respiratoryrelated care. Furthermore, based on data from a case series of 15 patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation that underwent prone positioning [20] , it was assumed that 14% of patients in the intervention arm would require some escalation in respiratory-related care. Therefore, assuming type 1 error of 0.05, a total sample size of 100 would provide 80% power to detect an absolute reduction of 26% in the proportion of patients needing an escalation in respiratory-related care (i.e., 40% vs. 14% comparing the usual care to the prone arm). We sought to recruit 20% of the patients in each arm and recalculate the sample size based on empirically-derived estimates of event frequency. The results of the first 20% of the data used for the sample size recalculation will be combined with the rest of the data. The primary analysis will focus on whether the proportion of patients requiring an escalation of respiratory-related care differs between the two groups. Initial analyses will tabulate demographic and baseline characteristics of the participants by randomization group. Primary analysis will be based on intention-to-treat. Baseline characteristics will be compared between treatment groups using Student's t test for continuous variables and  2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables as appropriate. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will also employed when a nonparametric test of continuous variables is warranted. For the primary endpoint, the proportion of patients requiring escalation of respiratory-related care will be compared. In addition, time-to-event modeling including the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator and associated log-rank test will be used to compare the two groups on the time to change in respiratory-related care. Additional post-hoc exploratory analysis will be conducted if differences in baseline characteristics are observed using multivariable regression with the inclusion of J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f baseline variables that are different between the two groups. Statistical analyses will be performed using the SAS Software (SAS institute). A P <0.05 will be used to infer statistical significance. improves oxygenation and decreases mortality [5, 21, 22] . The physiological changes with prone positioning have been studied extensively in mechanically-ventilated patients. Prone positioning improves lung compliance and reduces the pleural pressure gradient while having little effect on perfusion. The result is a more homogeneous transpulmonary pressure gradient, ventilatory homogeneity, and a reduced shunt fraction [23, 24] . Furthermore, prone positioning has previously been shown to improve ventilation, likely through reducing alveolar dead space [24] . Secretion clearance is also significantly enhanced by prone positioning [25] . hour after prone positioning [12, 21] , 16 hours daily has previously been recommended for intubated patients [22] . For awake patients, the minimum duration of the intervention required to produce a measurable effect, as well as the durability of these changes, remain to be determined. Therefore, findings from this trial have the potential to impact the current standards of practice in care of patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 that does not require mechanical ventilation. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study Use of extreme position changes in acute respiratory failure Effect of prone positioning during mechanical ventilation on mortality among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis Response to the prone position in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study Early awake prone position combined with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in severe COVID-19: a case series Awake prone positioning in COVID-19 Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Exploratory Findings in a Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Patients Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients with COVID-19 Short-term outcomes of 50 patients with acute respiratory distress by COVID-19 where prone positioning was used outside the ICU Use of Prone Positioning in Nonintubated Patients With COVID-19 and Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure Feasibility and physiological effects of prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 (PRON-COVID): a prospective cohort study Prone Positioning in Awake, Nonintubated Patients With Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Prone positioning reduces mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome in the low tidal volume era: a meta-analysis A physiological approach to understand the role of respiratory effort in the progression of lung injury in SARS-CoV-2 infection Characterization and clinical course of 1000 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York: retrospective case series Respiratory Parameters in Patients With COVID-19 After Using Noninvasive Ventilation in the Prone Position Outside the Intensive Care Unit Prone positioning improves oxygenation in spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A retrospective study Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome Regional ventilation-perfusion distribution is more uniform in the prone position PaCO2 and alveolar dead space are more relevant than PaO2/FiO2 ratio in monitoring the respiratory response to prone position in ARDS patients: a physiological study Short-term effects of prone position in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with severe acute hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure