Skip to content

COVID-19 Patient Positioning Pragmatic Trial

Pragmatic Trial Exploring Impact of Patient Positioning in the Management of Patients Infected With COVID-19: Supine vs. Prone

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04359797
Enrollment
501
Registered
2020-04-24
Start date
2020-04-27
Completion date
2021-01-17
Last updated
2021-12-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

COVID-19

Brief summary

This study aims to determine if provider-recommended guidance on supine (on back) vs. prone (on stomach) positioning of patients testing positive for COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, but not yet mechanically ventilated, improves outcomes in the inpatient setting. This study will be performed as a pragmatic clinical trial.

Detailed description

Disease Progression and Timing of Intervention The intervention described herein focuses on adjustment of patient positioning aimed at improving gas exchange and lung function in patients harboring COVID-19. This intervention will target the inpatient setting generally. Scientific/Clinical Rationale for Approach Since emergence of the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) now designated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), one in six affected patients becomes seriously ill. The lung appears to be the most susceptible target organ, with a large swath of symptomatic patients struggling with mild upper respiratory tract illness and severe viral pneumonia resulting in respiratory failure. This respiratory failure is often fatal, with one study showing 28% non-survivors having experienced respiratory failure. Moreover, 81-97% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation do not survive. Like its interaction with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV), angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the functional receptor for COVID-19. Viral adherence to host-cell membrane associated ACE2 facilitates the proximity required for viral spike mediated genetic material injection. In COVID-19, this spike is 10-20 times more likely to bind ACE2 than SARS. ACE2 is expressed in 0.64% of all human lung cells, with 83% of those cells being alveolar epithelial type II. In addition, gene ontology enrichment analysis showed that the ACE2-expressing alveolar epithelial type II have high levels of multiple viral process-related genes, including regulatory genes for viral processes, viral life cycle, viral assembly, and viral genome replication, suggesting that the ACE2-expressing alveolar epithelial type II cells facilitate coronaviral replication in the lung. Thus, these cells likely serve as a ready reservoir for viral invasion. Perhaps more importantly, alveolar type II cells function to generate and recycle surfactant essential to respiratory activity. Surfactant defends against alveolar collapse at low lung volume and protects the lung from injuries/infections caused by inhaled particles and micro-organisms. In COVID-19, if these vital cells are being destroyed, alveolar failure may ensue with severe lung impairment. Thus, interventions that are aimed at improving pressure normalization and alveolar protection may be beneficial in these patients. Prone positioning (PP) has long been used to combat hypoxemia in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Improvements in gas exchange result from improved alveolar ventilation and blood flow redistribution with enhanced perfusion following. PP reduces lung over inflation and bolsters alveolar recruitment. PP also promotes uniformity of vertical pleural pressure gradients resulting in more uniform alveolar size. Considering these physiologic factors together, the investigators hypothesize PP serves to balance stress and strain within the lungs of non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 leading to improved outcomes compared to traditional supine positioning. Prior Research Supporting the Positioning Model: Multiple studies have been conducted that support the use of PP as a proactive treatment to combat hypoxemia in ARDS. Each year, approximately 170,000 people are diagnosed with ARDS, and those diagnosed face mortality rates between 25% and 40%. The use of PP stretches back to the 1970s, as providers began to search for ways to ameliorate ARDS symptomatology and reduce the then even higher levels of mortality associated with it. Following initial reports that PP significantly improved oxygenation in 70-80% of patients with ARDS, it was adopted as a standard treatment option. Initially, randomized clinical trials struggled to replicate these findings, citing multiple limitations to study enrollment and treatment standardization that made ascertaining conclusive results difficult. Only as RCT construction has been refined to accommodate for these limitations have the benefits of PP been more clearly demonstrated. These beneficial effects have been recently upheld by the landmark PROSEVA study, a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial, that randomly assigned 466 patients with severe ARDS to undergo prone-positioning sessions of at least 16 hours or to be left in the supine position. Their results demonstrated a significant improvement in both 28- and 90-day mortality rates: the 28-day mortality was 16.0% in the prone group and 32.8% in the supine group (P\<0.001). The hazard ratio for death with prone positioning was 0.39 (95% confidence interval \[CI\], 0.25 to 0.63). Unadjusted 90-day mortality was 23.6% in the prone group versus 41.0% in the supine group (P\<0.001), with a hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67). Per these positive findings, PP has been consistently shown to be an effective mechanism to increase oxygenation in patients with ARDS when implemented under the following conditions: early enlisting of treatment and its consistent maintenance for at least 16 hours per day, and with concurrent use of lung-protective therapies. Translating these findings towards treatment of COVID-19 positive patients seems promising given the similarity of manifested symptoms and complications.

Interventions

OTHERProne

Provider-recommended guidance on prone positioning of patients

OTHERUsual Care

No provider-recommendation, patients will remain in their natural choice of position

Sponsors

Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Patients and providers will necessarily be unblinded, but outcomes will be analyzed by a blind assessor.

Intervention model description

This study will be performed as a pragmatic controlled clinical trial with parallel group assignment.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* This study will enroll all patients admitted to VUMC who test positive for COVID-19 and require supplemental oxygen, but are not yet mechanically ventilated.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients admitted on mechanical ventilation will be excluded from enrollment.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 55 days post-randomizationThe highest level of support on the 5th day after enrollment according to the following scale adjusted for patient status at enrollment according to the same scale and ranked by mean FIO2 within each category, as appropriate. * Death * ECMO * Mechanical ventilation (ranked by mean FIO2) * Non-invasive ventilation such as BiPAP (ranked by mean FIO2) * High flow nasal cannula, e.g. Optiflow, Vapotherm or other similar device (titrated by FiO2%) (ranked by mean FIO2) * Standard nasal cannula (titrated by L/min up to 15 L/min) or face mask (ranked by mean FIO2) * Room air

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
FIO2First 5 days post-randomizationFor each day, the investigators will record the most intensive oxygen delivery mode and then, for that highest level of oxygen support device, the max FiO2 while exposed to that device.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Usual Care
Participants randomized to this arm will remain in their natural choice of position, which is anticipated to favor a supine, semi-recumbent position. Usual Care: No provider-recommendation, patients will remain in their natural choice of position
243
Prone
Participants randomized to this arm will be encouraged to lay in a completely prone position for as much time as is tolerable during hospitalization. Prone: Provider-recommended guidance on prone positioning of patients
258
Total501

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalProneUsual Care
Age, Continuous61.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.3
61.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.4
60.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.2
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latinx
66 Participants33 Participants33 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic/Latinx
417 Participants213 Participants204 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Unknown ethnicity
18 Participants12 Participants6 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Asian
14 Participants8 Participants6 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Black or African American
99 Participants56 Participants43 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Other race
56 Participants30 Participants26 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Unknown race
15 Participants9 Participants6 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
White
316 Participants154 Participants162 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
501 participants258 participants243 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
217 Participants112 Participants105 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
284 Participants146 Participants138 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
48 / 24363 / 258
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 2430 / 258
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 2430 / 258

Outcome results

Primary

Number of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5

The highest level of support on the 5th day after enrollment according to the following scale adjusted for patient status at enrollment according to the same scale and ranked by mean FIO2 within each category, as appropriate. * Death * ECMO * Mechanical ventilation (ranked by mean FIO2) * Non-invasive ventilation such as BiPAP (ranked by mean FIO2) * High flow nasal cannula, e.g. Optiflow, Vapotherm or other similar device (titrated by FiO2%) (ranked by mean FIO2) * Standard nasal cannula (titrated by L/min up to 15 L/min) or face mask (ranked by mean FIO2) * Room air

Time frame: 5 days post-randomization

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Discharged109 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Room Air15 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Standard Nasal Cannula57 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5High Flow Nasal Cannula16 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Non-invasive Ventilation26 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Mechanical Ventilation10 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5ECMO1 Participants
Usual CareNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Death9 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Death19 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Discharged99 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Non-invasive Ventilation24 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Room Air15 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5ECMO1 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Standard Nasal Cannula65 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5Mechanical Ventilation19 Participants
ProneNumber of Participants Categorized on the Modified WHO Ordinal Scale by the Highest Level of Support on Day 5High Flow Nasal Cannula16 Participants
Secondary

FIO2

For each day, the investigators will record the most intensive oxygen delivery mode and then, for that highest level of oxygen support device, the max FiO2 while exposed to that device.

Time frame: First 5 days post-randomization

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Usual CareFIO2Day 240.3 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 28.2
Usual CareFIO2Day 437.8 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 30.2
Usual CareFIO2Day 339.3 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 29.8
Usual CareFIO2Day 537.1 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 31
Usual CareFIO2Day 140.4 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 27.1
ProneFIO2Day 540.6 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 32
ProneFIO2Day 145.3 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 29.1
ProneFIO2Day 244.0 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 30.9
ProneFIO2Day 343.6 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 32.1
ProneFIO2Day 442.7 percentage of inspired oxygenStandard Deviation 32.5

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 12, 2026