157 results found
Arabi Y, Gordon A, Derde L, et al., 2021, Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized control trial, Intensive Care Medicine, ISSN: 0342-4642
Purpose: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir, and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ-support free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR >1 is favorable. Results: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n=255), hydroxychloroquine (n=50), combination therapy (n=27) or control (n=362). The median (IQR) organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (–1 to 15), 0 (–1 to 9) and –1 (–1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (–1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and >99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02735707
Newcombe V, McAuley D, Coats T, et al., 2021, The Future of Acute and Emergency Care, Future Healthcare Journal, ISSN: 2055-3331
Ratcliff J, Nguyen D, Fish M, et al., 2021, Virological and serological characterization of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the UK: Interactions of viral load, antibody status and B.1.1.7 variant infection., Journal of Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 0022-1899
BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma containing neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 is under investigation for COVID-19 treatment. We report diverse virological characteristics of UK intensive care patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomised controlled trial that potentially influence treatment outcomes. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs collected pre-treatment was quantified by PCR. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains using allele-specific probes or restriction site polymorphism (SfcI) targeting D1118H. RESULTS: Of 1274 subjects, 90% were PCR-positive with viral loads 118-1.7x10 11 IU/ml. Median viral loads were 40-fold higher in those seronegative for IgG antibodies (n=354; 28%) compared to seropositives (n=939; 72%). Frequencies of B.1.1.7 increased from <1% in early November, 2020 to 82% of subjects in January 2021. Seronegative individuals with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher viral loads than seropositives (medians 5.8x10 6 and 2.0 x10 5 IU/ml respectively; p=2x10 -15). However, viral load distributions were elevated in both seronegative and seropositive subjects infected with B.1.1.7 (4.0x10 6 and 1.6x10 6 IU/ml respectively). CONCLUSIONS: High viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects and resistance to seroconversion indicate less effective clearance by innate and adaptive immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 strain, viral loads and antibody status define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.
Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Janiaud P, et al., 2021, Author Correction: Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials., Nature Communications, Vol: 12, Pages: 1-2, ISSN: 2041-1723
Patel BV, Haar S, Handslip R, et al., 2021, Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom, Intensive Care Medicine, Vol: 47, Pages: 549-565, ISSN: 0342-4642
PurposeThe trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions.MethodsWe included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget (https://www.CovidUK.ICU).ResultsData for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9–18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06–1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17–2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04–1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99–1.79
DeMerle KM, Angus DC, Baillie JK, et al., 2021, Sepsis subclasses: a framework for development and interpretation, Critical Care Medicine, Vol: 49, Pages: 748-759, ISSN: 0090-3493
Sepsis is defined as a dysregulated host response to infection that leads to life-threatening acute organ dysfunction. It afflicts approximately 50 million people worldwide annually and is often deadly, even when evidence-based guidelines are applied promptly. Many randomized trials tested therapies for sepsis over the past 2 decades, but most have not proven beneficial. This may be because sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterized by a vast set of clinical and biologic features. Combinations of these features, however, may identify previously unrecognized groups, or "subclasses" with different risks of outcome and response to a given treatment. As efforts to identify sepsis subclasses become more common, many unanswered questions and challenges arise. These include: 1) the semantic underpinning of sepsis subclasses, 2) the conceptual goal of subclasses, 3) considerations about study design, data sources, and statistical methods, 4) the role of emerging data types, and 5) how to determine whether subclasses represent "truth." We discuss these challenges and present a framework for the broader study of sepsis subclasses. This framework is intended to aid in the understanding and interpretation of sepsis subclasses, provide a mechanism for explaining subclasses generated by different methodologic approaches, and guide clinicians in how to consider subclasses in bedside care.
Gordon A, Mouncey P, Al-Beidh F, et al., 2021, Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically Ill patients with Covid-19, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol: 384, Pages: 1491-1502, ISSN: 0028-4793
BACKGROUNDThe efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear.METHODSWe evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support–free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of −1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both.RESULTSBoth tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support–free days was 10 (interquartile range, −1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, −1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleuki
Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Janiaud P, et al., 2021, Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials, NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, Vol: 12, ISSN: 2041-1723
Angus DC, Gordon AC, Bauchner H, 2021, Emerging lessons from COVID-19 for the US clinical research enterprise, JAMA, Pages: E1-E3, ISSN: 0098-7484
Lall R, Mistry D, Skilton E, et al., 2021, Study into the reversal of septic shock with landiolol (beta blockade): STRESS-L Study protocol for a randomised trial., BMJ Open, Vol: 11, Pages: 1-10, ISSN: 2044-6055
INTRODUCTION: In 2013, a single-centre study reported the safe use of esmolol in patients with septic shock and tachycardia who required vasopressor therapy for more than 24 hours. Although not powered to detect a change in mortality, marked improvements were seen in survival (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; p<0.001). Beta blockers are one of the most studied groups of drugs but their effect in septic shock is poorly understood; proposed mechanisms include not only the modulation of cardiac function but also immunomodulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: STRESS-L is a randomised, open-label, non-blinded clinical trial which is enrolling a total of 340 patients with septic shock as defined by Sepsis-3 consensus definition and a tachycardia (heart rate ≥95 beats per minute (bpm)) after vasopressor treatment of at least 24 hours. Standard randomisation (1:1 ratio) allocates patients to receive usual care (according to international standards) versus usual care and a continuous landiolol infusion to reduce the heart rate between 80 and 94 bpm. The primary endpoint is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score over 14 days from entry into the trial and while in intensive care unit. Results will inform current clinical practice guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has clinical trial authorisation from the UK competent authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and has been approved by the East of England-Essex Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EE/0368).The results of the trial will be reported first to trial collaborators. The main report will be drafted by the trial coordinating team, and the final version will be agreed by the Trial Steering Committee before submission for publication, on behalf of the collaboration. REGISTRATION: The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) (Project Number: EME-14/150/85) and registered ISRCTN12600919 a
Mouncey PR, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K, et al., 2021, Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill peoble aged 65 and over; the 65 RCT, HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, Vol: 25, Pages: I-+, ISSN: 1366-5278
BackgroundTreatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.MethodsFrom November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.ResultsA total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81–90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).ConclusionInotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers a
Billot L, Cuthbertson B, Gordon A, et al., 2021, Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Intensive Care Units cross-over, cluster randomised controlled trial. (SuDDICU), Critical Care and Resuscitation, ISSN: 1441-2772
Background:There is uncertainty whether the use of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract (SDD) improves outcomes in ventilated patients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and whether SDD is associated with the development of antibiotic resistance. Objectives:To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in ICUs (SuDDICU) trial.Design, setting and participants:SuDDICU is an international, cross-over, cluster-randomised-controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs using two 12-month trial periods. Participating ICUs will implement either SDD plus standard care or standard care for each period. The SuDDICU drug intervention is an oral paste and gastric suspension of three antibiotics combined with a 4-day course of intravenous antibiotics. An observational ecological assessment will be conducted during the interventional periods and 5 surveillance periods. The trial will be conducted in 19 ICUs in Australia and 10 ICUs in Canada and the UK that will recruit 15000-17000 patients. Recruitment commenced in Australia in 2017. Outcomes:The primary outcome is all-cause hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include duration of ventilation, ICU and hospital stay, the incidence of new antibiotic resistant organisms during the index ICU admission, changes in antibiotic resistant organism rates, incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infections and total antibiotic usage.Results and conclusions:SuDDICU will determine whether the use of SDD plus standard care is associated with a reduction in hospital mortality in ventilated ICU patients compared to standard care alone and will quantify the impact of the use of SDD on the development of antibiotic resistance. Trial registration:The trial is registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12615000411549) and on ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02389036).
Annane D, Pirracchio R, Billot L, et al., 2020, Effects of low-dose hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone in adults with septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data, BMJ Open, Vol: 10, ISSN: 2044-6055
Introduction The benefits and risks of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock have been investigated in numerous randomised controlled trials and trial-level meta-analyses. Yet, the routine use of this treatment remains controversial. To overcome the limitations of previous meta-analyses inherent to the use of aggregate data, we will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on the effect of hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone compared with placebo or usual care on 90-day mortality and other outcomes in patients with septic shock.Methods and analysis To assess the benefits and risks of hydrocortisone, with or without fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock, we will search major electronic databases from inception to September 2020 (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), complimented by a search for unpublished trials. The primary analysis will compare hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone to placebo or no treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Secondary analyses will compare hydrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), and hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days. We will conduct both one-stage IPDMA using mixed-effect models and machine learning with targeted maximum likelihood analyses. We will assess the risk of bias related to unshared data and related to the quality of individual trial.Ethics and dissemination This IPDMA will use existing data from completed randomised clinical trials and will comply with the ethical and regulatory requirements regarding data sharing for each of the component trials. The findings of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-review journal with straightforward policy for open access.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017062198.
Wilkinson T, Dixon R, Page C, et al., 2020, ACCORD: A multicentre, seamless, phase 2 adaptive randomisation platform study to assess the efficacy and safety of multiple candidate agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, Trials, Vol: 21, Pages: 1-3, ISSN: 1745-6215
ObjectivesStage 1: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of candidate agents as add-on therapies to standard of care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a screening stage.Stage 2: To confirm the efficacy of candidate agents selected on the basis of evidence from Stage 1 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an expansion stage.Trial designACCORD is a seamless, Phase 2, adaptive, randomised controlled platform study, designed to rapidly test candidate agents in the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate agent being included via its own sub-protocol, initially randomising equally between each candidate and a single contemporaneous SoC arm (which can adapt into 2:1). Candidate agents currently include bemcentinib, MEDI3506, acalabrutinib, zilucoplan and nebulised heparin. For each candidate a total of 60 patients will be recruited in Stage 1. If Stage 1 provides evidence of efficacy and acceptable safety the candidate will enter Stage 2 where a total of approximately 126 patients will be recruited into each study arm sub-protocol. Enrollees and outcomes will not be shared across the Stages; the endpoint, analysis and sample size for Stage 2 may be adjusted based on evidence from Stage 1. Additional arms may be added as new potential candidate agents are identified via candidate agent specific sub-protocols.ParticipantsThe study will include hospitalised adult patients (≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the virus that causes COVID-19, that clinically meet Grades 3 (hospitalised – mild disease, no oxygen therapy), Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs) and 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen) of the WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 9-point category ordinal scale.Participants will be recruited from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.Intervention and comparatorComparator is current standard of care (SoC) for the treatment
Sinha P, Calfee CS, Cherian S, et al., 2020, Prevalence of ARDS phenotypes in critically-Ill COVID-19 patients: a prospective observational cohort study, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Vol: 8, Pages: 1209-1218, ISSN: 2213-2600
Rationale: In non-COVID-19 ARDS, two phenotypes, based on the severity of systemic inflammation, have been described. The hyperinflammatory phenotype is known to be associated with increased multi-organ failure and mortality. In this study, we aimed to identify these phenotypes in COVID-19 ARDS.Methods: Patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 at two U.K. ICUs were recruited to the study. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at baseline. Plasma samples were analysed for Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble tumour-necrosis-factor receptor-1 (sTNFR-1) using a novel point-of-care assay. A parsimonious regression classifier model was used to calculate the probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype in COVID-19 using IL-6, sTNFR-1 and sodium bicarbonate levels. Data from this cohort was compared to patients with ARDS recruited to a UK multicentre, randomised controlled trial of simvastatin (HARP-2).Results: 39 patients were recruited to the study. Median PaO2/FiO2 was 18 kpa (IQR: 15 – 21) and APACHE II score was 12 (IQR: 10 – 14.5). 17/39 patients (44%) had died by day 28 of the study. Patients that died were older and had lower PaO2/FiO2. The median probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype was 0.03 (IQR 0.01 – 0.2). Depending on the probability cut-off used to assign class, the prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype was between 10-21% (4-8/39) which is lower than in HARP-2 (186/539, 35%). Mortality in the hyperinflammatory phenotype was 5/8 (63%) and 12/31 (39%) in the hypoinflammatory phenotype. Compared to matched patients recruited to HARP-2, in COVID-19 levels of IL-6 were similar, whereas sTNFR-1 was significantly lower.Summary: In this exploratory analysis of 39 patients, ARDS due to COVID-19 is not associated with higher systemic inflammation and is associated with a lower prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype compared to historical ARDS data.
Richards-Belle A, Mouncey PR, Grieve RD, et al., 2020, Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Protocol for the 65 randomised clinical trial, Journal of the Intensive Care Society, Vol: 21, Pages: 281-282, ISSN: 1751-1437
Vasodilatory shock is common in critically ill patients and vasopressors are a mainstay of therapy. A meta-analysis suggested that use of a higher, as opposed to a lower, mean arterial pressure target to guide titration of vasopressor therapy, could be associated with a higher risk of death in older critically ill patients. The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (a mean arterial pressure target of 60–65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial is conducted in 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult, general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. The 65 trial received favourable ethical opinion from the South Central – Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and approval from the Health Research Authority. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies REACT Working Group, Sterne JAC, Murthy S, et al., 2020, Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis., JAMA, Vol: 324, Pages: 1330-1341
Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns&q
Angus DC, Derde L, Al-Beidh F, et al., 2020, Effect of hydrocortisone on mortality and organ support in patients with severe COVID-19, JAMA, Vol: 324, Pages: 1317-1329, ISSN: 0098-7484
Importance Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.Objective To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.Design, Setting, and Participants An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.Interventions The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was organ support–free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned –1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).Results After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137)
Boyd SE, Vasudevan A, Moore LSP, et al., 2020, Validating a prediction tool to determine the risk of nosocomial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli infection in critically ill patients: A retrospective case-control study, Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, Vol: 22, Pages: 826-831, ISSN: 2213-7165
BACKGROUND: The Singapore GSDCS score was developed to enable clinicians predict the risk of nosocomial multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (RGNB) infection in critically ill patients. We aimed to validate this score in a UK setting. METHOD: A retrospective case-control study was conducted including patients who stayed for more than 24h in intensive care units (ICUs) across two tertiary National Health Service hospitals in London, UK (April 2011-April 2016). Cases with RGNB and controls with sensitive Gram-negative bacilli (SGNB) infection were identified. RESULTS: The derived GSDCS score was calculated from when there was a step change in antimicrobial therapy in response to clinical suspicion of infection as follows: prior Gram-negative organism, Surgery, Dialysis with end-stage renal disease, prior Carbapenem use and intensive care Stay of more than 5 days. A total of 110 patients with RGNB infection (cases) were matched 1:1 to 110 geotemporally chosen patients with SGNB infection (controls). The discriminatory ability of the prediction tool by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in our validation cohort was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.81), which is comparable with the area under the curve of the derivation cohort (0.77). The GSDCS score differentiated between low- (0-1.3), medium- (1.4-2.3) and high-risk (2.4-4.3) patients for RGNB infection (P<0.001) in a UK setting. CONCLUSION: A simple bedside clinical prediction tool may be used to identify and differentiate patients at low, medium and high risk of RGNB infection prior to initiation of prompt empirical antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care setting.
Sterne JAC, Diaz J, Villar J, et al., 2020, Corticosteroid therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of randomized trials, Trials, Vol: 21, Pages: 1-3, ISSN: 1745-6215
ObjectivesPrimary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To examine whether the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization varies between subgroups related to treatment characteristics, disease severity at the time of randomization, patient characteristics, or risk of bias. To examine the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on serious adverse events.Study designProspective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Both placebo-controlled and open-label trials are eligible.ParticipantsHospitalised, critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.Intervention and comparatorIntervention groups will have received therapeutic doses of a steroid (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone) with IV or oral administration immediately after randomization.The comparator groups will have received standard of care or usual care or placebo.Main outcomeAll-cause mortality up to 28 days after randomization.Search methodsSystematic searching of clinicaltrials.gov, EudraCT, the WHO ISRCTN registry, and the Chinese clinical trials registry. Additionally, research and WHO networks will be asked for relevant trials.Risk of bias assessmentsThese will be based on the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and will use structured information provided by the trial investigators on a form designed for this prospective meta-analysis.Summary of findingsWe will use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.Statistical analysesTrial investigators will provide data on the numbers of participants who did and did not experience each outcome according to intervention group, overall and in specified subgroups. We will conduct fixed-effect (primary analysis) and random-effects (Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and Hartung-Knapp adjustment) meta-analyses. We will quantify in
Russell JA, Gordon AC, Williams MD, et al., 2020, Vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit, Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine: pulmonology, critical care, allergy and immunology, infections, Vol: 42, Pages: 59-77, ISSN: 1069-3424
After fluid administration for vasodilatory shock, vasopressors are commonly infused. Causes of vasodilatory shock include septic shock, post-cardiovascular surgery, post-acute myocardial infarction, postsurgery, other causes of an intense systemic inflammatory response, and drug -associated anaphylaxis. Therapeutic vasopressors are hormones that activate receptors—adrenergic: α1, α2, β1, β2; angiotensin II: AG1, AG2; vasopressin: AVPR1a, AVPR1B, AVPR2; dopamine: DA1, DA2. Vasopressor choice and dose vary widely because of patient and physician practice heterogeneity. Vasopressor adverse effects are excessive vasoconstriction causing organ ischemia/infarction, hyperglycemia, hyperlactatemia, tachycardia, and tachyarrhythmias. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of vasopressors has shown a decreased 28-day mortality rate. There is a need for evidence regarding alternative vasopressors as first-line vasopressors. We emphasize that vasopressors should be administered simultaneously with fluid replacement to prevent and decrease duration of hypotension in shock with vasodilation. Norepinephrine is the first-choice vasopressor in septic and vasodilatory shock. Interventions that decrease norepinephrine dose (vasopressin, angiotensin II) have not decreased 28-day mortality significantly. In patients not responsive to norepinephrine, vasopressin or epinephrine may be added. Angiotensin II may be useful for rapid resuscitation of profoundly hypotensive patients. Inotropic agent(s) (e.g., dobutamine) may be needed if vasopressors decrease ventricular contractility. Dopamine has fallen to almost no-use recommendation because of adverse effects; angiotensin II is available clinically; there are potent vasopressors with scant literature (e.g., methylene blue); and the novel V1a agonist selepressin missed on its pivotal RCT primary outcome. In pediatric septic shock, vasopressors, epinephrine, and norepinephrine are recommended equally becau
WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characterisation and Management of COVID-19 infection, 2020, A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research., Lancet Infect Dis, Vol: 20, Pages: e192-e197
Clinical research is necessary for an effective response to an emerging infectious disease outbreak. However, research efforts are often hastily organised and done using various research tools, with the result that pooling data across studies is challenging. In response to the needs of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 outbreak, the Clinical Characterisation and Management Working Group of the WHO Research and Development Blueprint programme, the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists, and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium have developed a minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19. This set includes three elements: a measure of viral burden (quantitative PCR or cycle threshold), a measure of patient survival (mortality at hospital discharge or at 60 days), and a measure of patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale, which reflects patient trajectory and resource use over the course of clinical illness. We urge investigators to include these key data elements in ongoing and future studies to expedite the pooling of data during this immediate threat, and to hone a tool for future needs.
ISARIC clinical characterisation group, 2020, Global outbreak research: harmony not hegemony., Lancet Infect Dis, Vol: 20, Pages: 770-772
Reddy K, Sinha P, O'Kane CM, et al., 2020, Subphenotypes in critical care: translation into clinical practice., The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Vol: 8, Pages: 631-643, ISSN: 2213-2600
Despite progress in the supportive care available for critically ill patients, few advances have been made in the search for effective disease-modifying therapeutic options. The fact that many trials in critical care medicine have not identified a treatment benefit is probably due, in part, to the underlying heterogeneity of critical care syndromes. Numerous approaches have been proposed to divide populations of critically ill patients into more meaningful subgroups (subphenotypes), some of which might be more useful than others. Subclassification systems driven by clinical features and biomarkers have been proposed for acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and pancreatitis. Identifying the systems that are most useful and biologically meaningful could lead to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of critical care syndromes and the discovery of new treatment targets, and allow recruitment in future therapeutic trials to focus on predicted responders. This Review discusses proposed subphenotypes of critical illness syndromes and highlights the issues that will need to be addressed to translate subphenotypes into clinical practice.
Angus DC, Berry S, Lewis RJ, et al., 2020, The randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform for community-acquired pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) study: rationale and design, Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Vol: 17, Pages: 879-891, ISSN: 2329-6933
There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The trial uses a novel design entitled a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform (REMAP). The design has 5 key features: i.) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; ii.) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; iii.) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; iv.) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable, and v.) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within 4 treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP was approved and enrolling patients in 52 ICUs in 13 countries in 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode wi
Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy C, et al., 2020, Artificial intelligence vs. clinicians – a systematic review of the design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies in diagnostic medical imaging, BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol: 368, ISSN: 0959-535X
Objective To systematically examine the design, reporting standards, risk of bias, and claims of studies comparing the performance of diagnostic deep learning algorithms for medical imaging with that of expert clinicians.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization trial registry from 2010 to June 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trial registrations and non-randomised studies comparing the performance of a deep learning algorithm in medical imaging with a contemporary group of one or more expert clinicians. Medical imaging has seen a growing interest in deep learning research. The main distinguishing feature of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in deep learning is that when CNNs are fed with raw data, they develop their own representations needed for pattern recognition. The algorithm learns for itself the features of an image that are important for classification rather than being told by humans which features to use. The selected studies aimed to use medical imaging for predicting absolute risk of existing disease or classification into diagnostic groups (eg, disease or non-disease). For example, raw chest radiographs tagged with a label such as pneumothorax or no pneumothorax and the CNN learning which pixel patterns suggest pneumothorax.Review methods Adherence to reporting standards was assessed by using CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) for randomised studies and TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) for non-randomised studies. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised studies and PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool) for non-randomised studies.Results Only 10 records were found for deep learning randomised clinical trials, two of which have been published (with low risk of bias, except for lack of bl
Lamontagne F, Richards-Belle A, Thomas K, et al., 2020, Effect of reduced exposure to vasopressors on 90-day mortality in older critically ill patients with vasodilatory hypotension, JAMA, Vol: 323, Pages: 938-949, ISSN: 0098-7484
Importance Vasopressors are commonly administered to intensive care unit (ICU) patients to raise blood pressure. Balancing risks and benefits of vasopressors is a challenge, particularly in older patients.Objective To determine whether reducing exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] target, 60-65 mm Hg) reduces mortality at 90 days in ICU patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension.Design, Setting, and Participants A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 65 ICUs in the United Kingdom and included 2600 randomized patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension (assessed by treating clinician). The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019, and follow-up was completed in August 2019.Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 to vasopressors guided either by MAP target (60-65 mm Hg, permissive hypotension) (n = 1291) or according to usual care (at the discretion of treating clinicians) (n = 1307).Main Outcome and Measures The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.Results Of 2600 randomized patients, after removal of those who declined or had withdrawn consent, 2463 (95%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (mean [SD] age 75 years [7 years]; 1387 [57%] men). Patients randomized to the permissive hypotension group had lower exposure to vasopressors compared with those in the usual care group (median duration 33 hours vs 38 hours; difference in medians, –5.0; 95% CI, –7.8 to –2.2 hours; total dose in norepinephrine equivalents median, 17.7 mg vs 26.4 mg; difference in medians, –8.7 mg; 95% CI, –12.8 to −4.6 mg). At 90 days, 500 of 1221 (41.0%) in the permissive hypotension compared with 544 of 1242 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, −2.85%; 95% CI, −6.75 to 1.05; P = .15) (unadjusted relative r
Patel PB, Brett S, O'Callaghan D, et al., 2020, A randomized clinical trial of methylnaltrexone for the treatment of opioid induced constipation & gastrointestinal stasis in intensive care patients; results from the MOTION trial, Intensive Care Medicine, Vol: 46, Pages: 747-755, ISSN: 0342-4642
PurposeConstipation can be a significant problem in critically unwell patients, associated with detrimental outcomes. Opioids are thought to contribute to the mechanism of bowel dysfunction. We tested if methylnaltrexone, a pure peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonist, could reverse opioid induced constipationMethodsThe MOTION trial is a multi-centre, double blind, randomised placebo controlled trial to investigate whether methylnaltrexone alleviatesopioid induced constipation (OIC) in critical care patients. Eligibility criteria included adult ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated, receiving opioids and were constipated (had not opened bowels for a minimum 48 hours) despite prior administration of regular laxatives as per local bowel management protocol. The primary outcome was time to significant rescue-free laxation. Secondary outcomes included gastric residual volume, tolerance of enteral feeds, requirement for rescue laxatives, requirement for prokinetics, average number of bowel movements per day,escalation of opioid dose due to antagonism/reversal of analgesia, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, incidence of diarrhoea and Clostridium difficileinfection and finally 28 day, ICU and hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 84 patients were enrolled and randomized (41 to methylnaltrexone and 43 to placebo). The baseline demographic characteristics of the two groups were generally well balanced. There was no significant differencein time to rescue-free laxation between the groups (Hazard ratio 1.42, 95%CI 0.82-2.46, p=0.22). There were no significant differencesin the majority of secondary outcomes, particularly days 1-3. However, during days 4-28, there were fewer median number of bowel movements per day in the methylnaltrexone group, (p=0.01) and a greater incidence of diarrhoea in the placebo group (p=0.02). There was a marked difference in mortality between the groups, with ten deaths in the methylnaltrexone group and two in the placebo group
Antcliffe DB, Gordon AC, 2019, Why Understanding Sepsis Endotypes Is Important for Steroid Trials in Septic Shock, Critical Care Medicine, Vol: 47, Pages: 1782-1784, ISSN: 0090-3493
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.