Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid could help to personalize corticosteroid therapy in severe COVID-19 pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the response to high-dose corticosteroids according to bronchoalveolar neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (BAL-NLR) in critically-ill COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a single-center cohort of adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 pneumonia between 2020 and 2022, who had a bronchoalveolar lavage and received systemic corticosteroids. We defined high-dose corticosteroid therapy as the administration of at least 1mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone.

RESULTS

Among 161 patients, 56 had LOWBAL-NLR (<0.8), 55 MILDBAL-NLR (0.8-3.5), and 50 HIGHBAL-NLR (>3.5). A quarter of patients received high-dose corticosteroid therapy. In the HIGHBAL-NLR group, those receiving high-dose corticosteroid therapy had a lower (27 % versus 43 %, p = 0.23) 90-day mortality rate than those receiving a standard dose. In the LOWBAL-NLR group, those receiving high-dose corticosteroid therapy had a higher (31 % versus 12 %, p = 0.12) 90-day mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that bronchoalveolar cellular phenotype influences therapeutic response to high-dose corticosteroid therapy.

Management of SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Polish Association of Epidemiologists and Infectiologists, for 2025

The first Polish recommendations for the management of COVID-19 were published by the Polish Society of Epidemiologists and Infectiologists (PTEiLChZ) on 31 March 2020, and the last three years ago. The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, a different course of the disease, as well as new knowledge about therapies and vaccines, requires updating diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic guidelines. Despite the reduction in the threat associated with COVID-19, there is a risk of another epidemic caused by coronaviruses, which was an additional reason for developing a new version of the guidelines. In preparing these recommendations, the Delphi method was used, reaching a consensus after three survey cycles. Compared to the 2022 version, the names of the individual stages of the disease have been changed, adapting them to the realities of clinical practice, and attention was paid to the differences observed in immunosuppressed patients and in children. Some previously recommended drugs have been discontinued, including monoclonal antibodies. In addition, general principles of vaccination were presented, as well as issues related to the post-COVID syndrome.

Critical care nutrition: a Bayesian re-analysis of trial data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nutritional support and optimal glucose control are key components of care during critical illness, yet evidence surrounding their use remains conflicting, making translation into clinical practice challenging. This review explores Bayesian methods to enhance the interpretation of frequentist critical care trials, particularly for interventions with inconclusive outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bayesian re-analysis frameworks may clarify conflicting evidence in critical care, thus enhancing interpretability and supporting clinical decision-making. This review focuses on the Bayesian re-analysis of three recent trials with indeterminate results for mortality - NUTRIREA-3, EFFORT Protein, and TGC-Fast - that examined the effects of enteral nutrition and glucose control strategies.

SUMMARY

We re-analyzed the mortality outcomes of these trials within a Bayesian framework, contrasting our findings with the original trial results to illustrate how Bayesian methods can enhance the clinical applicability of trial outcomes. Although Bayesian and frequentist analyses generally agree on the direction and magnitude of effect, Bayesian methods offer the advantage of providing posterior probabilities of benefit and harm, thus identifying promising and potentially harmful interventions. This review underscores the value of Bayesian analysis in re-evaluating clinical trial data and guiding clinical practice.

Potential clinical impact of predictive modeling of heterogeneous treatment effects: scoping review of the impact of the PATH Statement

Background

The PATH Statement (2020) proposed predictive modeling for examining heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It distinguished risk modeling, which develops a multivariable model predicting individual baseline risk of study outcomes and examines treatment effects across risk strata, from effect modeling, which directly estimates individual treatment effects from models that include treatment, multiple patient characteristics and interactions of treatment with selected characteristics.

Purpose

To identify, describe and evaluate findings from reports that cite the Statement and present predictive modeling of HTE in RCTs.

Data Extraction

We identified reports using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SCOPUS through July 5, 2024. Using double review with adjudication, we assessed consistency with Statement recommendations, credibility of HTE findings (applying criteria adapted from the Instrument to assess Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN)), and clinical importance of credible findings.

Results

We identified 65 reports (presenting 31 risk models, 41 effect models). Contrary to Statement recommendations, only 25 of 48 studies with positive overall findings included a risk model; most effect models included multiple predictors with little prior evidence for HTE. Claims of HTE were noted in 23 risk modeling and 31 effect modeling reports, but risk modeling met credibility criteria more frequently (87 vs 32 percent). For effect models, external validation of HTE findings was critical in establishing credibility. Credible HTE from either approach was usually judged clinically important (24 of 30). In 19 reports from trials suggesting overall treatment benefits, modeling identified subgroups of 5-67% of patients predicted to experience no benefit or net treatment harm. In five that found no overall benefit, subgroups of 25-60% of patients were nevertheless predicted to benefit.

Conclusions

Multivariable predictive modeling identified credible, clinically important HTE in one third of 65 reports. Risk modeling found credible HTE more frequently; effect modeling analyses were usually exploratory, but external validation served to increase credibility.

Inflammatory Biomarkers Demonstrate Predictive Capacity for Mortality in COVID-19-Related ARDS Patients Receiving High-Dose Corticosteroids: A Longitudinal Analysis

Purpose

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who lack clinical improvement are frequently treated with high-dose corticosteroids (HDS). Since HDS is used to reduce hyperinflammation in these patients, levels of (pro-)inflammatory biomarkers after commencing HDS treatment could be useful in predicting mortality. This study aims to evaluate biomarker levels after commencing HDS over time, along with their capacity to predict mortality.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated with HDS in the intensive care unit (ICU) at an academic hospital in the Netherlands between March 2020-March 2022. Inflammatory biomarkers (ie, C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, ferritin, leukocyte count, interleukin-6 (IL-6), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and procalcitonin (PCT)) were assessed daily from start of HDS (ie baseline) until day 7. Associations between biomarker levels and all-cause-hospital-mortality were evaluated each day using logistic regression, with cut-offs identified by optimizing sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp).

Results

Of the 122 patients included, 53 (43.4%) died during hospitalization. HDS was initiated for a median 7 days (IQR=1-11) after ICU admission. At baseline, a moderately high predictive capacity for mortality was observed at a ferritin level >1281 µg/L (Se=62%/Sp=64%), leukocyte count >13.7 × 109/L (Se=42%/Sp=79%), and NLR >12.1 (Se=61%/Sp=77%). During follow-up, CRP >50 mg/L on day 6 (Se=50%/Sp=75%) and >42 mg/L on day 7 (Se=50%/Sp=75%), ferritin >1082 µg/L on day 6 (Se 63%/Sp=71%) and >1852 µg/L on day 7 (Se=31%/Sp=79%), IL-6 >67 mg/L on day 7 (Se=56%/Sp=79%) and LDH >396U/L on day 6 (Se=38%/Sp=83%) and >373 U/L on day 7 (Se=47%/Sp=72%) showed moderate capacity to predict mortality. NLR was consistently associated with mortality for all days, except day 1 (Se=36-68%/Sp=72-92%).

Conclusion

In COVID-19 ARDS patients receiving HDS, several clinically available inflammatory biomarkers moderately predicted all-cause-hospital-mortality after the start of HDS, particularly on days 6 and 7. NLR demonstrated the most consistent association with mortality over time. The use of these markers requires validation in larger cohorts.

Lower vs. higher blood pressure targets during intensive care of comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a Bayesian analysis of the BOX trial

AIMS

The Blood Pressure and Oxygenation (BOX) targets after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest trial found no statistically significant differences in mortality or neurological outcomes with mean arterial blood pressure targets of 63 vs. 77 mmHg in patients receiving intensive care post-cardiac arrest. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect on 1-year mortality and assess heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTEs) using Bayesian statistics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed 1-year all-cause mortality, 1-year neurological outcomes, and plasma neuron-specific enolase (NSE) at 48 h using Bayesian logistic and linear regressions primarily with weakly informative priors. HTE was assessed according to age, plasma lactate, time to return of spontaneous circulation, primary shockable rhythm, history of hypertension, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Absolute and relative differences are presented with probabilities of any clinical benefit and harm. All 789 patients in the intention-to-treat cohort were included. The risk difference (RD) for 1-year mortality was 1.5%-points [95% credible interval (CrI): -5.1 to 8.1], with <33% probability of benefit with the higher target. There was 33% probability for a better neurological outcome (RD: 1.5%-points; 95% CrI: -5.3 to 8.3) and 35.1% for lower NSE levels (mean difference: 1.5 µg/L, 95% CrI: -6.0 to 9.1). HTE analyses suggested potential harms of the higher blood pressure target in younger patients.

CONCLUSION

The effects of a higher blood pressure target on overall mortality among comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were uncertain. A potential effect modification according to age warrants additional investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03141099.

Bayesian Reanalyses of the Trials TOMAHAWK and COACT

BACKGROUND

The timing of coronary angiography in patients with successfully resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and missing ST-segment elevations on the electrocardiogram has been investigated in 2 large randomized controlled trials, TOMAHAWK (Angiography After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation) and COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest Trial). Both trials found neutral results for immediate vs delayed/selective coronary angiography on short-term all-cause mortality. The TOMAHAWK trial showed a tendency towards harm with immediate coronary angiography, though not statistically significant with traditional frequentist methods. Probabilistic analyses of both trials may enable greater clinical understanding of the trial findings.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to perform reanalyses of both trials within a Bayesian framework.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses of both multicenter randomized controlled trials were performed in both cohorts separately and combined. The primary endpoint, 30-day all-cause mortality, was analyzed using Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors included "flat," "neutral," "optimistic," and "pessimistic" priors based on assumptions made when designing both trials.

RESULTS

In the TOMAHAWK trial, immediate coronary angiography showed a very high posterior probability of increased mortality between 90% and 97% across all priors. The ORs across all priors were directed towards harm. Similarly, COACT showed odds ratios ranging from 0.98 to 1.11 for the 30-day mortality endpoint. When combining both trials, immediate coronary angiography showed a high probability of increased mortality between 83% and 95%, again with ORs across all priors indicating a direction towards harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Bayesian reanalyses showed a very high probability of increased 30-day mortality risk with immediate compared with delayed/selective coronary angiography in the TOMAHAWK trial and combined trial cohort. These findings may shift the current understanding of both trials from a "neutral" towards a likely "harmful" effect of immediate coronary angiography after successfully resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevations. Therefore, adoption of a delayed strategy of coronary angiography might be preferred in clinical practice until the results of the DISCO (Direct or Subacute Coronary Angiography in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) trial become available.

Effects of two different dexamethasone dosing regimens on ventilator-free days and long-term mortality in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS: the REMED randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19 has been shown to decrease mortality and morbidity. The effects of higher doses of corticosteroid, that would further increase anti-inflammatory effects, are uncertain. The objective of our study was to assess the effect of 20 mg dexamethasone vs. 6 mg dexamethasone intravenously in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19.

METHODS

In a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial conducted in nine hospitals in the Czech Republic, we randomized adult patients with ARDS and COVID-19 requiring high-flow oxygen, noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation to receive either intravenous high-dose dexamethasone (20 mg/day on days 1-5, 10 mg/day on days 6-10) or standard-dose dexamethasone (6 mg/d, days 1-10). The primary outcome was 28-day ventilator-free days. The five secondary outcomes were 60-day mortality, C-reactive protein dynamics, 14-day WHO (World Health Organization) Clinical Progression Scale score, adverse events and 90-day Barthel index. The long-term outcomes were 180- and 360-day mortality and the Barthel index. The planned sample size was 300, with interim analysis after enrollment of 150 patients.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped due to a lack of recruitment, and the follow-up was completed in February 2023. Among 234 randomized patients of 300 planned patients, the primary outcome was available for 224 patients (110 high-dose and 114 standard-dose dexamethasone; median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 59.0 [48.5-66.0] years; 130 [58.0%] were receiving noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline). The mean number of 28-day ventilator-free days was 8.9 (± 11.5) days for high-dose dexamethasone and 8.0 (± 10.7) days for standard-dose dexamethasone, with an absolute difference of + 0.81 days (95% CI - 2.12-3.73 days). None of the prespecified secondary outcomes, including adverse events, differed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite not reaching its prespecified enrollment, there was no signal to either benefit or harm high-dose dexamethasone over standard-dose dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS. Trial registration Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04663555. Registered 10 December 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04663555?term=NCT04663555&rank=1 and EudraCT: 2020-005887-70.

A Retrospective Data Audit of Outcome of Moderate and Severe Covid-19 Patients Who Had Received MP and Dex: A Single Center Study

Purpose

To evaluate the necessity of the application of glucocorticoid (GC) in moderate COVID-19 patients, and which is the optimal choice between methylprednisolone (MP) and dexamethasone (DEX) in the clinical use of GC in different types of COVID-19 patients.

Patients and Methods

The study included patients with COVID-19 in Shanxi, China, from December 18, 2022, to March 1, 2023. The main clinical outcomes were 30-day mortality, disease exacerbations, and hospitalization days. Secondary outcomes included the demand for non-invasive ventilator-assisted ventilation (NIPPV)/invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the need for GC regimen escalation in follow-up treatment, duration of GC treatment, and complications including hyperglycemia and fungal infection.

Results

In moderate patients (N = 351), the rate of exacerbation and the need for GC regimen escalation in follow-up treatment was highest in the no-use GC group (P = 0.025, P = 0.01), the rate of fungal infections was highest in the DEX group (P = 0.038), and MP 40 mg/day or DEX 5 mg/day reduced exacerbations with consistent effects. In severe patients (N = 371), the two GC regimens do not affect their 30-day mortality and exacerbation rate, but the number of hospital days was significantly lower in the MP group compared with the DEX group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

GC use is beneficial in mitigating exacerbations in moderate patients and in patients with moderate COVID-19. In severe patients, MP reduces the number of hospitalization days compared with DEX and may be a superior choice.

The effect of high protein dosing in critically ill patients: an exploratory, secondary Bayesian analyses of the EFFORT Protein trial

BACKGROUND

The EFFORT Protein trial assessed the effect of high vs usual dosing of protein in adult ICU patients with organ failure. This study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).

METHODS

We analysed 60-day all-cause mortality and time to discharge alive from hospital using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to disease severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score), acute kidney injury, and serum creatinine values at baseline.

RESULTS

The absolute difference in mortality was 2.5% points (95% credible interval -6.9 to 12.4), with a 72% posterior probability of harm associated with high protein treatment. For time to discharge alive from hospital, the hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.80 to 1.04) with a 92% probability of harm for the high-dose protein group compared with the usual-dose protein group. There were 97% and 95% probabilities of positive interactions between the high protein intervention and serum creatinine and SOFA score at randomisation, respectively. Specifically, there was a potentially relatively higher mortality of high protein doses with higher baseline serum creatinine or SOFA scores.

CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate to high probabilities of harm with high protein doses compared with usual protein in ICU patients for the primary and secondary outcomes. We found suggestions of heterogeneity in treatment effects with worse outcomes in participants randomised to high protein doses with renal dysfunction or acute kidney injury and greater illness severity at baseline.

Efficacy of azvudine plus dexamethasone in severe hospitalized patients with Omicron infection: a prospective multicenter study

Background

Azvudine (AZV), the first Chinese oral anti-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drug, has shown substantial clinical benefits to viral clearance and prognosis in patients with mild and common COVID-19. However, there is no evidence in severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

In this multicenter study, we analyzed 209 severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients in four hospitals. All the clinical data and the 28-day composite outcomes were recorded. All of the patients were categorized into two groups according to drug: the dexamethasone (DXM) group and the azvudine plus dexamethasone (AZV+DXM) group.

Results

There were no differences in sex, age, BMI, and underlying diseases between the two groups. The ratio of the 28-day composite outcome was lower for the AZV+DXM group than that for the DXM group (16.97% vs. 31.82%, p = 0.029). The viral clearance time was shorter in the AZV+DXM group than in the DXM group (7.32 ± 2.57 vs. 8.55 ± 2.34 days, p = 0.017). The PaO2/FiO2 levels on day 5 (258.89 ± 55.22 vs. 233.12 ± 60.51, p = 0.026) and day 10 (289.48 ± 44.09 vs. 261.52 ± 37.34, p = 0.015) were higher in the AZV+DXM group than the DXM group. However, data on the hospitalization duration of the two groups were similar. Cox analysis showed the benefit of AZV+DXM in the subgroups of ≥65 years old, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), cerebrovascular disease, C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥70mg/L, and D-dimer ≥1 µg/L.

Conclusion

This study is the first to indicate that treatment with AZV+DXM might benefit severe Omicron-infected patients compared with DXM treatment alone. This finding demonstrates, at least partly, the necessity of antiviral treatment in severe patients.

Heterogeneity, Bayesian thinking, and phenotyping in critical care: A primer

PURPOSE

To familiarize clinicians with the emerging concepts in critical care research of Bayesian thinking and personalized medicine through phenotyping and explain their clinical relevance by highlighting how they address the issues of frequent negative trials and heterogeneity of treatment effect.

SUMMARY

The past decades have seen many negative (effect-neutral) critical care trials of promising interventions, culminating in calls to improve the field's research through adopting Bayesian thinking and increasing personalization of critical care medicine through phenotyping. Bayesian analyses add interpretive power for clinicians as they summarize treatment effects based on probabilities of benefit or harm, contrasting with conventional frequentist statistics that either affirm or reject a null hypothesis. Critical care trials are beginning to include prospective Bayesian analyses, and many trials have undergone reanalysis with Bayesian methods. Phenotyping seeks to identify treatable traits to target interventions to patients expected to derive benefit. Phenotyping and subphenotyping have gained prominence in the most syndromic and heterogenous critical care disease states, acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. Grouping of patients has been informative across a spectrum of clinically observable physiological parameters, biomarkers, and genomic data. Bayesian thinking and phenotyping are emerging as elements of adaptive clinical trials and predictive enrichment, paving the way for a new era of high-quality evidence. These concepts share a common goal, sifting through the noise of heterogeneity in critical care to increase the value of existing and future research.

CONCLUSION

The future of critical care medicine will inevitably involve modification of statistical methods through Bayesian analyses and targeted therapeutics via phenotyping. Clinicians must be familiar with these systems that support recommendations to improve decision-making in the gray areas of critical care practice.

Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial: Protocol

BACKGROUND

Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low.

METHODS

The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.

Lower versus higher blood pressure targets in comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the box trial

BACKGROUND

The management of blood pressure targets during intensive care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a topic of debate. The blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets After OHCA (BOX) trial explored the efficacy of two different blood pressure targets in 789 patients during intensive care after OHCA. In the primary frequentist analysis, no statistically significant differences were found for neurological outcome after 90 days.

METHODS

This protocol outlines secondary Bayesian analyses of 365-day all-cause mortality and two secondary outcomes: neurological outcome after 365 days, and plasma neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, after 48 h. We will employ adjusted Bayesian logistic and linear regressions, presenting results as relative and absolute differences with 95% confidence intervals. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and skeptical and evidence-based priors (where available) in sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities for any benefit/harm will be presented for all outcomes, along with probabilities of clinically important benefit/harm (risk differences larger than 2%-points absolute) and no clinically important differences for the binary outcomes. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present according to lactate at admission, time to return of spontaneous circulation, primary shockable rhythm, age, hypertension, and presence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

DISCUSSION

This secondary analysis of the BOX trial aim to complement the primary frequentist analysis by quantifying the probabilities of beneficial or harmful effects of different blood pressure targets. This approach seeks to provide clearer insights for researchers and clinicians into the effectiveness of these blood pressure management strategies in acute medical conditions, particularly focusing on mortality, neurological outcomes, and neuron-specific enolase.

Anti-inflammatory therapies are associated with delayed onset of anemia and reduction in transfusion requirements in critically ill patients: results from two studies

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a hallmark of critical illness, which is largely inflammatory driven. We hypothesized that the use of anti-inflammatory agents limits the development of anemia and reduces the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in patients with a hyper-inflammatory condition due to COVID-19.

METHODS

An observational cohort (n = 772) and a validation cohort (a subset of REMAP-CAP, n = 119) of critically ill patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were analyzed, who either received no treatment, received steroids or received steroids plus IL-6 blocking agents. The trajectory of hemoglobin (Hb) decline and the need for RBC transfusions were compared using descriptive statistics as well as multivariate modeling.

RESULTS

In both cohorts, Hb level was higher in the treated groups compared to the untreated group at all time points. In the observational cohort, incidence and number of transfused patients were lower in the group receiving the combination treatment compared to the untreated groups. In a multivariate analysis controlling for baseline Hb imbalance and mechanical ventilation, receipt of steroids remained associated with a slower decline in Hb level and the combination treatment remained associated with a slower decline of Hb and with less transfusions. Results remained the same in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Immunomodulatory treatment was associated with a slower decline in Hb level in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and with less transfusion. Findings point toward inflammation as an important cause for the occurrence of anemia in the critically ill.

Symptoms and Impaired Quality of Life After COVID-19 Hospitalization: Effect of Therapeutic Heparin in Non-ICU Patients in the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 Acute Trial: Effect on 3-Month Symptoms and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic-dose heparin decreased days requiring organ support in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but its impact on persistent symptoms or quality of life (QOL) is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

In the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 ACUTE (ACTIV-4a) trial, was randomization of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 illness to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin associated with fewer symptoms and better QOL at 90 days?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial at 34 hospitals in the United States and Spain. A total of 727 noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from September 2020 to June 2021 were randomized to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin. Only patients with 90-day data on symptoms and QOL were analyzed. We ascertained symptoms and QOL by the EQ-5D-5L at 90-day follow-up in a preplanned analysis for the ACTIV-4a trial. Individual domains assessed by the EQ-5D-5L included mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 571 patients, 288 (50.4%) reported at least one symptom. Among 410 patients, 148 (36.1%) reported moderate to severe impairment in one or more domains of the EQ-5D-5L. The presence of 90-day symptoms was associated with moderate-severe impairment in the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.22-4.59), usual activities (aOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.75-7.65), pain (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.43-4.12), and anxiety (aOR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.06-9.02), compared with patients reporting no symptoms There were no differences in symptoms or in the overall EQ-5D-5L index score between treatment groups. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less moderate-severe impairment in all physical functioning domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities) but was independently significant only in the self-care domain (aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

In a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less severe impairment in the self-care domain of EQ-5D-5L. However, this type of impairment was uncommon, affecting 23 individuals.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04505774; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia: A Neglected Problem

Glucocorticoids provide a potent therapeutic response and are widely used to treat a variety of diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, the issue of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GIH), which is observed in over one-third of patients treated with glucocorticoids, is often neglected. To improve the clinical course and prognosis of diseases that necessitate glucocorticoid therapy, proper management of GIH is essential. The key pathophysiology of GIH includes systemic insulin resistance, which exacerbates hepatic steatosis and visceral obesity, as well as proteolysis and lipolysis of muscle and adipose tissue, coupled with β-cell dysfunction. For patients on glucocorticoid therapy, risk stratification should be conducted through a detailed baseline evaluation, and frequent glucose monitoring is recommended to detect the onset of GIH, particularly in high-risk individuals. Patients with confirmed GIH who require treatment should follow an insulin-centered regimen that varies depending on whether they are inpatients or outpatients, as well as the type and dosage of glucocorticoid used. The ideal strategy to maintain normoglycemia while preventing hypoglycemia is to combine basal-bolus insulin and correction doses with a continuous glucose monitoring system. This review focuses on the current understanding and latest evidence concerning GIH, incorporating insights gained from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

METHODS

Between May 01, 2023, and June 20, 2023, 48 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were treated at the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine of Jinan Fourth People's Hospital. The observation group (21 patients) received standard care and high-dose corticosteroids, (high-dose group). The control group (27 patients) received standard care and low-dose corticosteroids (low-dose group). We collected baseline data and recorded inflammatory marker levels after 3 days of treatment, body temperature recovery time, length of stay, and 28-day all-cause mortality. The results of outpatient follow-up were recorded after 1 month.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality and length of stay. The number of days it took for body temperature to return to normal in the high-dose group was less than in the low-dose group. The high-dose group had significantly more reduced inflammatory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6). A total of 20 discharged patients were given 8-16 mg of methylprednisolone, depending on chest computed tomography (CT) and clinical symptoms after 1 month; in all discharged patients using oral corticosteroids, CT features improved.

CONCLUSION

High-dose corticosteroids had a significantly positive effect on the reduction of inflammatory factors and shortening body temperature recovery time. In the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, early administration of high-dose, short-course corticosteroids should be implemented.

Guidance for prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents: A consensus statement from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society Pediatric COVID-19 Therapies Taskforce

BACKGROUND

Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy.

METHODS

A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus.

RESULTS

There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial

BACKGROUND

The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).

METHODS

We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation.

RESULTS

The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses.

CONCLUSION

We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

The impact of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery following intensive care admission: Protocol for a pre-planned secondary Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial

BACKGROUND

The PRECISe trial is a pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery in adult, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The current protocol presents the rationale and analysis plan for an evaluation of the primary and secondary outcomes under the Bayesian framework, with an emphasis on clinically important effect sizes.

METHODS

This protocol was drafted in agreement with the ROBUST-statement, and is submitted for publication before database lock and primary data analysis. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L health utility score and is longitudinally assessed. Secondary outcomes comprise the 6-min walking test and handgrip strength over the entire follow-up period (longitudinal analyses), and 60-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and EQ-5D-5L health utility scores at 30, 90 and 180 days (cross-sectional). All analyses will primarily be performed under weakly informative priors. When available, informative priors elicited from contemporary literature will also be incorporated under alternative scenarios. In all other cases, objectively formulated skeptical and enthusiastic priors will be defined to assess the robustness of our results. Relevant identified subgroups were: patients with acute kidney injury, severe multi-organ failure and patients with or without sepsis. Results will be presented as absolute risk differences, mean differences, and odds ratios, with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Posterior probabilities will be estimated for clinically important benefit and harm.

DISCUSSION

The proposed secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial will provide additional information on the effects of high protein on functional and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, such as probabilistic interpretation, probabilities of clinically important effect sizes, and the integration of prior evidence. As such, it will complement the interpretation of the primary outcome as well as several secondary and subgroup analyses.

Patterns of corticosteroid use among remdesivir and matched patients and associated clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate patterns of corticosteroid use and their relationship with remdesivir use and clinical outcomes in a large real-life cohort of COVID-19 patients treated in a tertiary-level institution.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 1558 severe and critical COVID-19 patients, including 779 patients treated with remdesivir and 779 matched control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 167 (10.7%) patients received none, 710 (45.6%) low, 539 (34.6%) high, and 142 (9.1%) very high corticosteroid doses. Patients treated with remdesivir had significantly longer exposure to corticosteroids, received higher average and maximal daily doses, and cumulative corticosteroid doses. In the multivariate analysis remdesivir use, lower cumulative comorbidity burden, higher severity of COVID-19 symptoms, and mechanical ventilation were recognized as mutually independent predictors of the use of higher corticosteroid doses. Higher corticosteroid doses were associated with significantly increased mortality.Among non-remdesivir treated patients, there was a U-shaped relationship between maximal daily corticosteroid dose and mortality. Among remdesivir treated patients gradual increase in mortality with increasing corticosteroid doses was observed.

CONCLUSION

Patterns of corticosteroid use differ regarding the use of remdesivir and may moderate its association with survival among severe and critical COVID-19 patients.

Off-label Use of Medicines in COVID-19: A Lesson For Future

Abstract:

The COVID-19 infection is rapidly spreading worldwide. Treating this new viral infection is a great challenge worldwide. There is no specific and approved medication for its treatment, so some medications are considered off-label. Antivirals, corticosteroids, antimalarial agents, and antibiotics are proposed in different countries to treat COVID-19. This narrative review discussed the off-label use of medications for COVID-19 and the beneficial and adverse effects of them. Evidence was collected and sorted from the literature ranging from 2019 to 2022 on scientific databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus with suitable keywords. All papers, namely systematic reviews, case studies, and clinical guidelines, were evaluated. Antimalarial agents, antivirals, antibiotics, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, biological medicines, Ivermectin, and melatonin were reviewed in this study. Some medications have direct antiviral effects, and many can reduce infection symptoms and hospitalization. In some clinical trial trials, even some of them, such as corticosteroids, can lower death rates, particularly during the cytokine storm period. However, the effectiveness of some medications has not been understood. Besides, the side effects of off-label use of these medications must be considered a serious concern. There are no proven medications for COVID-19 yet. Off-label use of medications is a double-edged sword that can have advantages outweighing its disadvantages. The COVID-19 crisis taught us many lessons about dealing with health-related crises and their treatment management. One of the most important lessons is paying more attention to the discovery and development of novel drugs and vaccines based on modern technology.

Case report: Enhancing prognosis in severe COVID-19 through human herpes virus coinfection treatment strategies

Background

In the context of increasing reports of co-infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly with human herpes viruses (HHVs), it is important to consider the appropriate treatment options for HHVs that have been reactivated by COVID-19.

Case presentation

This study presents two cases of severe COVID-19 with HHV co-infection. The first case involved a critically ill patient with COVID-19 co-infected with herpes simplex virus type 1, confirmed using metagenomic next-generation sequencing, and another patient with severe COVID-19 experiencing Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation, as evidenced by elevated EBV-DNA levels in the serum. Treatment included high-dose glucocorticoids and sivelestat sodium, with notable improvements observed after initiating ganciclovir anti-herpesvirus therapy.

Conclusion

This study underscores the significance of recognizing HHV co-infections in severe COVID-19 cases and highlights the potential of combining anti-HHV treatment, increased glucocorticoid dosages, and anti-cytokine storm therapy to enhance prognosis.

Corticosteroid Dosing Level, Incidence and Profile of Bacterial Blood Stream Infections in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

COVID-19 patients with severe or critical symptoms are often treated with corticosteroids, per contemporary guidelines. Due to their immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory properties, corticosteroids are associated with the development of superinfections. We aimed to retrospectively assess patterns of corticosteroid use and the profiles of bacterial blood stream infections associated with exposure to different dosing levels, in a cohort of 1558 real-life adult COVID-19 patients. A total of 1391 (89.3%) patients were treated with corticosteroids, with 710 (45.6%) patients receiving low, 539 (34.6%) high and 142 (9.1%) very high corticosteroid doses. Bacteremia developed in a total of 178 (11.4%) patients. The risk of bacteremia was of similar magnitude between the no and low-dose corticosteroid treatments (p = 0.352), whereas it progressively increased with high (OR 6.18, 95% CI (2.66-14.38), p < 0.001) and very high corticosteroid doses (OR 8.12, 95% CI (3.29-20.05), p < 0.001), compared to no corticosteroid treatment. These associations persisted after multivariate adjustments and were present independently of sex, comorbidity burden, and mechanical ventilation. The profiles of individual bacterial pathogens differed depending on the used corticosteroid doses. High and very high corticosteroid doses are frequently used for real-life COVID-19 patients with severe and critical clinical presentations and are associated with a higher risk of bacteremia independently of sex, comorbidity burden, and mechanical ventilation use.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of higher dose dexamethasone by geographic region (Europe vs. India) in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia - a post hoc evaluation of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

BACKGROUND

In the COVID-STEROID 2 trial there was suggestion of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) between patients enrolled from Europe vs. India on the primary outcome. Whether there was HTE for the remaining patient-centred outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of the COVID-STEROID 2 trial, which compared 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, we evaluated HTE by geographical region (Europe vs. India) for secondary outcomes with analyses adjusted for stratification variables. Results are presented as risk differences (RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from interaction tests.

FINDINGS

There were differences in mortality at day 28 (RD for Europe -8.3% (99% CI: -17.7 to 1.0) vs. India 0.1% (99% CI: -10.0 to 10.0)), mortality at day 90 (RD for Europe -7.4% (99% CI: -17.1 to 2.0) vs. India -1.4% (99% CI: -12.8 to 9.8)), mortality at day 180 (RD for Europe -6.7% (99% CI: -16.4 to 2.9) vs. India -1.0% (99% CI: -12.3 to 10.3)), and number of days alive without life support at day 90 (MD for Europe 6.1 days (99% CI: -1.3 to 13.4) vs. India 1.7 days (99% CI: -8.4 to 11.8)). For serious adverse reactions, the direction was reversed (RD for Europe -1.0% (99% CI: -7.1 to 5.2) vs. India -5.3% (99% CI: -16.2 to 5.0).

INTERPRETATION

Our analysis suggests higher dose dexamethasone may have less beneficial effects for patients in India as compared with those in Europe; however, the evidence is weak, and this could represent a chance finding.

FUNDING

None for this analysis. The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by The Novo Nordisk Foundation and supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Council.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

OBJECTIVE

To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made.

CONCLUSION

New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

A practical guide to adopting Bayesian analyses in clinical research

Background

Bayesian statistical approaches are extensively used in new statistical methods but have not been adopted at the same rate in clinical and translational (C&T) research. The goal of this paper is to accelerate the transition of new methods into practice by improving the C&T researcher's ability to gain confidence in interpreting and implementing Bayesian analyses.

Methods

We developed a Bayesian data analysis plan and implemented that plan for a two-arm clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of a new opioid in reducing time to discharge from the post-operative anesthesia unit and nerve block usage in surgery. Through this application, we offer a brief tutorial on Bayesian methods and exhibit how to apply four Bayesian statistical packages from STATA, SAS, and RStan to conduct linear and logistic regression analyses in clinical research.

Results

The analysis results in our application were robust to statistical package and consistent across a wide range of prior distributions. STATA was the most approachable package for linear regression but was more limited in the models that could be fitted and easily summarized. SAS and R offered more straightforward documentation and data management for the posteriors. They also offered direct programming of the likelihood making them more easily extendable to complex problems.

Conclusion

Bayesian analysis is now accessible to a broad range of data analysts and should be considered in more C&T research analyses. This will allow C&T research teams the ability to adopt and interpret Bayesian methodology in more complex problems where Bayesian approaches are often needed.

Cumulative steroid dose in hospitalized patients and COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis

BACKGROUND

Severe COVID-19 elicits a hyperimmune response frequently amenable to steroids, which in turn increase the risk for opportunistic infections. COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a complication known to be associated with immunomodulatory treatment. The role of cumulative steroid dose in the development of CAPA is unclear. This study evaluates the relationship between cumulative steroid dose in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 pneumonia and the risk for CAPA.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes 135 hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia at a tertiary centre in north Mexico. Patients who developed CAPA were matched by age and gender to two controls with COVID-19 pneumonia who did not develop CAPA defined and classified as possible, probable, or proven according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM criteria. Cumulative steroid dose in dexamethasone equivalents was obtained from admission until death, discharge, or diagnosis of CAPA (whichever occurred first). The risk of CAPA by the continuous cumulative steroid dose was assessed using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were diagnosed with CAPA and matched to 90 controls. Mean age was 61 ± 14 years, and 72% were male. Mean cumulative steroid dose was 66 ± 75 mg in patients without CAPA vs 195 ± 226 mg in patients with CAPA (P<0.001). The risk for CAPA increased with higher cumulative dose of steroids (OR 1.0075, 95% CI: 1.0033-1.0116).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who developed CAPA had a history of higher cumulative steroid dose during hospitalization. The risk for CAPA increases ∼8% for every 10 mg of dexamethasone used.

Positive single-center randomized trials and subsequent multicenter randomized trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how often survival benefits observed in single-center randomized controlled trials (sRCTs) involving critically ill patients are confirmed by subsequent multicenter randomized controlled trials (mRCTs). We aimed to perform a systemic literature review of sRCTs with a statistically significant mortality reduction and to evaluate whether subsequent mRCTs confirmed such reduction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for sRCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or Lancet, from inception until December 31, 2016. We selected studies reporting a statistically significant mortality decrease using any intervention (drug, technique, or strategy) in adult critically ill patients. We then searched for subsequent mRCTs addressing the same research question tested by the sRCT. We compared the concordance of results between sRCTs and mRCTs when any mRCT was available. We registered this systematic review in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023455362).

RESULTS

We identified 19 sRCTs reporting a significant mortality reduction in adult critically ill patients. For 16 sRCTs, we identified at least one subsequent mRCT (24 trials in total), while the interventions from three sRCTs have not yet been addressed in a subsequent mRCT. Only one out of 16 sRCTs (6%) was followed by a mRCT replicating a significant mortality reduction; 14 (88%) were followed by mRCTs with no mortality difference. The positive finding of one sRCT (6%) on intensive glycemic control was contradicted by a subsequent mRCT showing a significant mortality increase. Of the 14 sRCTs referenced at least once in international guidelines, six (43%) have since been either removed or suggested against in the most recent versions of relevant guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Mortality reduction shown by sRCTs is typically not replicated by mRCTs. The findings of sRCTs should be considered hypothesis-generating and should not contribute to guidelines.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial: a multinational, randomised clinical trial assessing treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care in extremely preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants.

METHODS

The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

Anti-inflammatory effects of dexamethasone in COVID-19 patients: Translational population PK/PD modeling and simulation

Dexamethasone (DEX) given at a dose of 6 mg once-daily for 10 days is a recommended dosing regimen in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen therapy. We developed a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PopPK/PD) model of DEX anti-inflammatory effects in COVID-19 and provide simulations comparing the expected efficacy of four dosing regimens of DEX. Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling and simulations were performed using Monolix Suite version 2021R1 (Lixoft, France). Published data for DEX PK in patients with COVID-19 exhibited moderate variability with a clearance of about half that in healthy adults. No accumulation of the drug was expected even with daily oral doses of 12 mg. Indirect effect models of DEX inhibition of TNFα, IL-6, and CRP plasma concentrations were enacted and simulations performed for DEX given at 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 mg daily for 10 days. The numbers of individuals that achieved specified reductions in inflammatory biomarkers were compared among the treatment groups. The simulations indicate the need for 6 or 12 mg daily doses of DEX for 10 days for simultaneous reductions in TNFα, IL-6, and CRP. Possibly beneficial is DEX given at a dose of 12 mg compared to 6 mg. The PopPK/PD model may be useful in the assessment of other anti-inflammatory compounds as well as drug combinations in the treatment of cytokine storms.

Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from high dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian post-hoc reanalysis of the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching very important difference in the effect-size. In the COVIDICUS trial, no evidence of additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20) was found. We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care 6 mg dose of DXM (DXMSoC).

METHODS

We performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXMSoc or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The outcome was the 60 day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with treatment effect measured on the hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model. Bayesian analyses allowed to compute the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit (HR < 0.95), and that of a potential harm (HR > 1.05). Bayesian measures of interaction then quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the HR of death differed across the subsets by 20%. Primary analyses used noninformative priors, centred on HR = 1.00. Sensitivity analyses used sceptical and enthusiastic priors, based on null (HR = 1.00) or benefit (HR = 0.95) effects.

RESULTS

Overall, the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit and potential harm was 29.0 and 51.1%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction (i) according to age (Pr Interact, 84%), with a 86.5% probability of benefit in patients aged below 70 compared to 22% in those aged above 70; (ii) according to the time since symptoms onset (Pr Interact, 99%), with a 99.9% probability of a more than trivial benefit when lower than 7 days compared to a < 0.1% probability when delayed by 7 days or more; and (iii) according to use of remdesivir (Pr Interact, 91%), with a 90.1% probability of benefit in patients receiving remdesivir compared to 19.1% in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1 ); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43 ).

Balanced resuscitation and earlier mortality end points: bayesian post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial

Introduction

The Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial failed to demonstrate a mortality difference for hemorrhaging patients receiving a balanced (1:1:1) vs a 1:1:2 resuscitation at 24 hours and 30 days. Recent guidelines recommend earlier mortality end points for hemorrhage-control trials, and the use of contemporary statistical methods. The aim of this post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial was to evaluate the impact of a balanced resuscitation strategy at early resuscitation time points using a Bayesian analytical framework.

Methods

Bayesian hierarchical models were created to assess mortality differences at the 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours time points between study cohorts. Posterior probabilities and Bayes factors were calculated for each time point.

Results

A 1:1:1 resuscitation displayed a 96%, 99%, 94%, 92%, 96%, and 94% probability for mortality benefit at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, respectively, when compared with a 1:1:2 approach. Associated Bayes factors for each respective time period were 21.2, 142, 14.9, 11.4, 26.4, and 15.5, indicating 'strong' to 'decisive' supporting evidence in favor of balanced transfusions.

Conclusion

This analysis provides evidence in support that a 1:1:1 resuscitation has a high probability of mortality benefit when compared with a 1:1:2 strategy, especially at the newly defined more proximate time points during the resuscitative period. Researchers should consider using Bayesian approaches, along with more proximate end points when assessing hemorrhage-related mortality, for the analysis of future clinical trials.

Level of evidence

Level III/Therapeutic.

Factors Associated With Prolonged Ventilation in Patients Receiving Prone Positioning Protocol With Muscle Relaxants for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are frequently used to treat severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia. Prone positioning has shown to improve mortality, whereas NMBAs are used to prevent ventilator asynchrony and reduce patient self-inflicted lung injury. However, despite the use of lung-protective strategies, high death rates in this patient population have been reported.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the factors affecting prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects receiving prone positioning plus muscle relaxants. The medical records of 170 patients were reviewed. Subjects were divided into 2 groups according to ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28. Whereas subjects with VFDs < 18 d were defined as prolonged mechanical ventilation, subjects with VFDs ≥18 d were defined as short-term mechanical ventilation. Subjects' baseline status, status at ICU admission, therapy before ICU admission, and treatment in the ICU were studied.

RESULTS

Under the proning protocol for COVID-19, the mortality rate in our facility was 11.2%. The prognosis may be improved by avoiding lung injury in the early stages of mechanical ventilation. According to multifactorial logistic regression analysis, persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood (P = .03), higher daily corticosteroid use before ICU admission (P = .007), delayed recovery of lymphocyte count (P < .001), and higher maximal fibrinogen degradation products (P = .039) were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. A significant relationship was found between daily corticosteroid use before admission and VFDs by squared regression analysis (y = -0.00008522x2 + 0.01338x + 12.8; x: daily corticosteroids dosage before admission [prednisolone mg/d]; y: VFDs/28 d, R2 = 0.047, P = .02). The peak point of the regression curve was 13.4 d at 78.5 mg/d of the equivalent prednisolone dose, which corresponded to the longest VFDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood, high corticosteroid dose from the onset of symptoms to ICU admission, slow recovery of lymphocyte counts, and high levels of fibrinogen degradation products after admission were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Lower or higher oxygenation targets for acute Hypoxaemic respiratory failure: Protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Supplemental oxygen therapy is central to the treatment of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, a condition which remains a major driver for morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Despite several large randomised clinical trials comparing a higher versus a lower oxygenation target for these patients, significant differences in study design impede analysis of aggregate data and final clinical recommendations.

METHODS

This paper presents the protocol for conducting an individual patient data meta-analysis where full individual patient data according to the intention-to-treat principle will be pooled from the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials in a one-step procedure. The two trials are near-identical in design. We plan to use a hierarchical general linear mixed model that accounts for data clustering at a trial and site level. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality while the secondary outcome will be days alive without life-support at 90 days. Further, we outline 14 clinically relevant predefined subgroups which we will analyse for heterogeneity in the intervention effects and interactions, and we present a plan for assessing the credibility of the subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The presented individual patient data meta-analysis will synthesise individual level patient data from two of the largest randomised clinical trials on targeted oxygen therapy in intensive care. The results will provide a re-analysis of the intervention effects on the pooled intention-to-treat populations and facilitate subgroup analyses with an increased power to detect clinically important effect modifications.

Rhinocerebral Mucormycosis Following COVID-19 Infection in Iran

Background & Objective

Mucormycosis (also called black fungus) is an opportunistic serious fungal infection caused by mucormycetes. It can occur in diabetes mellitus patients and other immunosuppressive conditions with recent predisposing factors such as maxillofacial surgery and corticosteroid usage.

Methods

In this study, 14 patients were referred to the otorhinolaryngology or ophthalmology ward of Shafa Hospital (Kerman, Iran) with primary symptoms of nasal fullness and facial nerve dysfunction; they were admitted to the hospital to rule out the fungal infection. An endoscopic biopsy was taken from facial sinuses or orbit, and a microscopic evaluation was performed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining methods to rule out mucormycosis.

Results

In the histopathological examination, broad-based nonseptate branching fungal hyphae were found in nasal sinuses through the endoscopic biopsy. Most of the patients had diabetes mellitus with a primary symptom of facial nerve palsy; also, most of them received corticosteroids (intravenous [IV] or intramuscular [IM] injection). All patients have recently been infected with COVID-19 (less than 1 month ago).

Conclusion

COVID-19 infection might be a predisposing factor for many opportunistic infections, such as fungal elements); thus, the physician should be aware of the dosage and duration of corticosteroid therapy to prevent the development of these infections.

Optimal Dosing and Timing of High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Study Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Multicenter Study (SELECT)

BACKGROUND

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the dosing and timing of corticosteroids vary widely. Low-dose dexamethasone therapy reduces mortality in patients requiring respiratory support, but it remains unclear how to treat patients when this therapy fails. In critically ill patients, high-dose corticosteroids are often administered as salvage late in the disease course, whereas earlier administration may be more beneficial in preventing disease progression. Previous research has revealed that increased levels of various biomarkers are associated with mortality, and whole blood transcriptome sequencing has the ability to identify host factors predisposing to critical illness in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal is to determine the most optimal dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy and to provide a basis for personalized corticosteroid treatment regimens to reduce morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter study that includes adult patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in the Netherlands. We will use the differences in therapeutic strategies between hospitals (per protocol high-dose corticosteroids or not) over time to determine whether high-dose corticosteroids have an effect on the following outcome measures: mechanical ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula therapy, in-hospital mortality, and 28-day survival. We will also explore biomarker profiles in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and use whole blood transcriptome analysis to determine factors that influence the relationship between high-dose corticosteroids and outcome. Existing databases that contain routinely collected electronic data during ward and intensive care admissions, as well as existing biobanks, will be used. We will apply longitudinal modeling appropriate for each data structure to answer the research questions at hand.

RESULTS

As of April 2023, data have been collected for a total of 1500 patients, with data collection anticipated to be completed by December 2023. We expect the first results to be available in early 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This study protocol presents a strategy to investigate the effect of high-dose corticosteroids throughout the entire clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, from hospital admission to the ward or intensive care unit until hospital discharge. Moreover, our exploration of biomarker and gene expression profiles for targeted corticosteroid therapy represents a first step towards personalized COVID-19 corticosteroid treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05403359; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05403359.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/48183.

Steroid in the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Early treatment of COVID-19 patients could reduce hospitalization and death. The effect of corticosteroids in the outpatient setting is still unknown. This study aimed to determine the effect of corticosteroids in the prevention of hospitalization of nonsevere cases.

Materials and Methods

This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Seventy five nonsevere COVID-19 patients presented between days 7 and 14 of their symptoms received either prednisolone or placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalization. The study protocol was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on December 2, 2020 (IRCT20171219037964N2).

Results

Although the rate of hospitalization in the prednisolone group was higher than the placebo group (10.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively), it was not statistically significant (P value.,6). One patient in each group reported an adverse event and withdrew the medication.

Conclusion

Considering the null effect of corticosteroids in the prevention of hospitalization in outpatient settings, it is suggested not to consider corticosteroids for outpatient treatment.

Management of Coronavirus Disease-2019 Infection in Pregnancy

Although the majority of pregnant patients who contract severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 will have a mild course of illness, pregnant patients with coronavirus disease-2019 are more likely than their nonpregnant counterparts to develop a severe illness with an increased risk of poor maternal and fetal outcomes. Although the extent of research in this specific patient population remains limited, there are tenets of care with which physicians and other providers must be familiar to increase the chances of better outcomes for the two patients in their care.

Drug treatment of COVID-19 infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 6.6 million deaths globally. Tremendous efforts have been committed for the development of new and repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Although different international and national guidelines share consensus in the management of COVID-19 disease with different levels of severity, new challenges have emerged, steering the need for ongoing research in advancing the clinical management of COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on recent data from randomized trials and postmarketing real-world evidence for the treatment of mild to moderate disease in the outpatient setting and patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with varying level of severity. Relevant data for treatment of the latest omicron sub-variants in people who received vaccination are presented. Challenges in special populations, including immunocompromised hosts, patients with renal failure and pregnant women, are also discussed.

SUMMARY

Treatment of COVID-19 should be personalized according to host characteristics, degree of severity and available treatment options.

Corticosteroid outcome may be dependent of duration of use in severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND/AIMS

For patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require supplemental oxygen, the evidence of the optimal duration of corticosteroid is limited. This study aims to identify whether long-term use of corticosteroids is associated with decreased mortality.

METHODS

Between February 10, 2020 and October 31, 2021, we analyzed consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with severe hypoxemia. The patients were divided into short-term (≤ 14 days) and long-term (> 14 days) corticosteroid users. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality. We performed propensity score (PS) analysis to mitigate the effect of confounders and conducted Kaplan-Meier curve analysis.

RESULTS

There were 141 (52%) short-term users and 130 (48%) long-term corticosteroid users. The median age was 68 years and the median PaO2/FiO2 at admission was 158. Of the patients, 40.6% required high-flow nasal cannula, 48.3% required mechanical ventilation, and 11.1% required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The overall 60-day mortality rate was 23.2%, and that of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) was 22.9%. The Kaplan-Meier curve for 60- day survival in the PS-matched cohort showed that corticosteroid for > 14 days was associated with decreased mortality (p = 0.0033). There were no significant differences in bacteremia and HAP between the groups. An adjusted odds ratio for the risk of 60-day mortality in short-term users was 5.53 (95% confidence interval, 1.90-18.26; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

For patients with severe COVID-19, long-term use of corticosteroids was associated with decreased mortality, with no increase in nosocomial complications. Corticosteroid use for > 14 days can benefit patients with severe COVID-19.

Causal Bayesian machine learning to assess treatment effect heterogeneity by dexamethasone dose for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia

The currently recommended dose of dexamethasone for patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is 6 mg per day (mg/d) regardless of patient features and variation. However, patients with severe or critical COVID-19 are heterogenous in many ways (e.g., age, weight, comorbidities, disease severity, and immune features). Thus, it is conceivable that a standardized dosing protocol may not be optimal. We assessed treatment effect heterogeneity in the COVID STEROID 2 trial, which compared 6 mg/d to 12 mg/d, using a causal inference framework with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, a flexible modeling method that detects interactive effects and nonlinear relationships among multiple patient characteristics simultaneously. We found that 12 mg/d of dexamethasone, relative to 6 mg/d, was probably associated with better long-term outcomes (days alive without life support and mortality after 90 days) among the entire trial population (i.e., no signals of harm), and probably more beneficial among those without diabetes mellitus, that were older, were not using IL-6 inhibitors at baseline, weighed less, or had higher level respiratory support at baseline. This adds more evidence supporting the use of 12 mg/d in practice for most patients not receiving other immunosuppressants and that additional study of dosing could potentially optimize clinical outcomes.

Higher- versus Lower-Dose Corticosteroids for Severe to Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis

Rationale: Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the optimal dose is uncertain. Objectives: To compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to August 1, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results both in relative risk and absolute risk difference per 1,000, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 20 trials, with 10,155 patients. We show that, compared with lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (absolute risk difference, 14 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% CI, 26 fewer to 2 fewer]; moderate certainty) and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (absolute risk difference, 11.6 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI, 23.2 fewer to 6.9 more]; low certainty). The effect of corticosteroids on nosocomial infections is uncertain (16.7 fewer infections per 1,000 [95% CI, 5.4 fewer to 25.0 fewer]; very low certainty). Conclusions: Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 and may not increase the risk of nosocomial infections.

Haloperidol vs. placebo for the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the AID–ICU trial

PURPOSE

The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results.

METHODS

We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.