Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

Background

Delirium is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The antipsychotic haloperidol is the most frequently used agent to treat delirium although this is not supported by solid evidence. The agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID‐ICU) trial investigates the effects of haloperidol versus placebo for the treatment of delirium in adult ICU patients.

Methods

This protocol describes the secondary, pre‐planned Bayesian analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes up to day 90 of the AID‐ICU trial. We will use Bayesian linear regression models for all count outcomes and Bayesian logistic regression models for all dichotomous outcomes. We will adjust for stratification variables (site and delirium subtype) and use weakly informative priors supplemented with sensitivity analyses using sceptical priors. We will present results as absolute differences (mean differences and risk differences) and relative differences (ratios of means and relative risks). Posteriors will be summarised using median values as point estimates and percentile‐based 95% credibility intervals. Probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and clinically unimportant differences will be presented for all outcomes.

Discussion

The results of this secondary, pre‐planned Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the AID‐ICU trial and facilitate a nuanced and probabilistic interpretation of the trial results.

Efficacy and Outcome of Remdesivir and Tocilizumab Combination Against Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of remdesivir and tocilizumab combination therapy against dexamethasone for the management of severe COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a multicenter study. Cases were randomly chosen and divided into two groups using an odd-even ratio of 1:1 applied to the hospital registration number. Group A received remdesivir [5 mg/kg (<40 kg) or 200 mg (>40 kg) on day 1 and then 2.5 mg/kg (<40 kg) or 100 mg (>40 kg) daily] + tocilizumab [8 mg/kg up to 800 mg highest 12 h apart], and group B was the control and received dexamethasone 6 mg/day. In addition, a broad-spectrum antibiotic and other essential treatments were received by all patients. To evaluate the mortality risk, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was calculated on day-1. Treatment outcomes were measured as time to clinical improvement; mortality rate; duration of ICU stay; total period of hospitalization; the rate of (Supplementary Material) oxygen use; time to clinical failure; National Early Warning Score-2 (NEWS), and the percentage of lung recovery on CT of chest on discharge. Clinical trial registration ID: NCT04678739. Results: Remdesivir-Tocilizumab group had a lower mortality rate (25.49%) than the control (30.77%). The time to clinical improvement (Group A-9.41; B-14.21 days), NEWS-2 on discharge (Group A-0.89; B-1.2), duration of ICU stay (Group A-7.68; B-10.58), and duration of hospitalization (Group A-9.91; B-14.68) were less in the treatment group. Group A had a better percentage of lung recovery on chest CT than the control (Group A-22.13; B-11.74). All these differences were statistically significant (p= <0.05) in a t-test. However, no significant survival benefit was found among the study groups in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, p = 0.739. Conclusion: The remdesivir-tocilizumab combination had preferable outcomes compared to the dexamethasone therapy for the treatment of severe COVID-19 concerning mortality rate and clinical and pulmonary improvement, although it did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04678739.

Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial

Background

Clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) fluid volumes in sepsis. The Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial investigates the effect of restricted vs. standard IV fluid therapy in 1554 adult intensive care unit patients with septic shock.

Methods

This protocol describes secondary Bayesian analyses of the primary outcome (90‐day all‐cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes at day 90. We will analyse all binary outcomes with adjusted Bayesian logistic regressions and present results as conditional relative risks and risk differences with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). The secondary count outcome will be analysed using adjusted Bayesian linear regression with results summarised as conditional mean differences and ratios of means with 95% Crls. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and sceptical and evidence‐based priors in the sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities will be presented for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and no clinically important difference. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present using Bayesian hierarchical models in subgroups and on the continuous scale using models with interactions according to five baseline variables assessing the overall severity of illness and the degree of circulatory and renal impairment.

Discussion

The outlined analyses will supplement the primary analysis of the CLASSIC trial by describing probabilities of beneficial and harmful effects and evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effects in a framework that may be easier to interpret for researchers and clinicians.

Higher versus lower oxygenation targets in COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxaemia (HOT-COVID) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory failure is the main cause of mortality and morbidity among ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In these patients, supplemental oxygen therapy is essential, but there is limited evidence the optimal target. To address this, the ongoing handling oxygenation targets in COVID-19 (HOT-COVID) trial was initiated to investigate the effect of a lower oxygenation target (partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂ ) of 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO₂ of 12 kPa) in the ICU on clinical outcome in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxaemia.

METHODS

The HOT-COVID is planned to enrol 780 patients. This paper presents the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the conduct of a secondary Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome of HOT-COVID being days alive without life-support at 90 days and the secondary outcome 90-day all-cause mortality. Furthermore, both outcomes will be investigated for the presence heterogeneity of treatment effects based on four baseline parameters being sequential organ failure assessment score, PaO₂ /fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, highest dose of norepinephrine during the 24 h before randomisation, and plasma concentration of lactate at randomisation.

CONCLUSION

The results of this pre-planned secondary Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the HOT-COVID trial and may facilitate a more nuanced interpretation of the trial results.

Efficacy and Outcome of Remdesivir and Tocilizumab Combination Against Dexamethasone for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of remdesivir and tocilizumab combination therapy against dexamethasone for the management of severe COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a multicenter study. Cases were randomly chosen and divided into two groups using an odd-even ratio of 1:1 applied to the hospital registration number. Group A received remdesivir [5 mg/kg (<40 kg) or 200 mg (>40 kg) on day 1 and then 2.5 mg/kg (<40 kg) or 100 mg (>40 kg) daily] + tocilizumab [8 mg/kg up to 800 mg highest 12 h apart], and group B was the control and received dexamethasone 6 mg/day. In addition, a broad-spectrum antibiotic and other essential treatments were received by all patients. To evaluate the mortality risk, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was calculated on day-1. Treatment outcomes were measured as time to clinical improvement; mortality rate; duration of ICU stay; total period of hospitalization; the rate of (Supplementary Material) oxygen use; time to clinical failure; National Early Warning Score-2 (NEWS), and the percentage of lung recovery on CT of chest on discharge. Clinical trial registration ID: NCT04678739. Results: Remdesivir-Tocilizumab group had a lower mortality rate (25.49%) than the control (30.77%). The time to clinical improvement (Group A-9.41; B-14.21 days), NEWS-2 on discharge (Group A-0.89; B-1.2), duration of ICU stay (Group A-7.68; B-10.58), and duration of hospitalization (Group A-9.91; B-14.68) were less in the treatment group. Group A had a better percentage of lung recovery on chest CT than the control (Group A-22.13; B-11.74). All these differences were statistically significant (p= <0.05) in a t-test. However, no significant survival benefit was found among the study groups in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, p = 0.739. Conclusion: The remdesivir-tocilizumab combination had preferable outcomes compared to the dexamethasone therapy for the treatment of severe COVID-19 concerning mortality rate and clinical and pulmonary improvement, although it did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04678739.

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

PURPOSE

We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation.

METHODS

We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses.

CONCLUSION

We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.

Innovations and development of Covid-19 vaccines: A patent review

More than 125 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported globally with rising cases in all countries since the first case was reported. A vaccine is the best measure for the effective prevention and control of COVID-19. There are more than 292 COVID-19 candidates' vaccines being developed as of July 2021 of which 184 are in human preclinical trials. A patent provides protection and a marketing monopoly to the inventor of an invention for a specified period. Therefore, vaccine developers, including Moderna, BioNTech, Janssen, Inovio, and Gamaleya also filed patent applications for the protection of their vaccines. This review aims to provide an insight into the patent literature of COVID-19 vaccines. The patent search was done using Patentscope and Espacenet databases. The results have revealed that most of the key players have patented their inventive COVID-19 vaccine. Many patent applications related to COVID-19 vaccines developed via different technologies (DNA, RNA, virus, bacteria, and protein subunit) have also been filed. The publication of a normal patent application takes place after 18 months of its filing. Therefore, many patents/patent applications related to the COVID-19 vaccine developed through different technology may come into the public domain in the coming days.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background

In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID‐19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low‐dose hydrocortisone on patient‐centred outcomes in adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia.

Methods

In this multicentre, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation.

Results

The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID‐19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: −1.1 days, 95% CI −9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14.

Conclusions

In this trial of adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020‐001395‐15.

Do high-dose corticosteroids improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by dysregulated hyperimmune response and steroids have been shown to decrease mortality. However, whether higher dosing of steroids results in better outcomes has been debated. This was a retrospective observation of COVID-19 admissions between March 1, 2020, and March 10, 2021. Adult patients (≥18 years) who received more than 10 mg daily methylprednisolone equivalent dosing (MED) within the first 14 days were included. We excluded patients who were discharged or died within 7 days of admission. We compared the standard dose of steroids (<40 mg MED) versus the high dose of steroids (>40 mg MED). Inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) was used to examine whether higher dose steroids resulted in improved outcomes. The outcomes studied were in-hospital mortality, rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring hemodialysis, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), hospital-associated infections (HAI), and readmissions. Of the 1379 patients meeting study criteria, 506 received less than 40 mg of MED (median dose 30 mg MED) and 873 received more than or equal to 40 mg of MED (median dose 78 mg MED). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher in patients who received high-dose corticosteroids (40.7% vs. 18.6%, p < 0.001). On IPWRA, the use of high-dose corticosteroids was associated with higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR] 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-3.14, p < 0.001) but not with the development of HAI, readmissions, or requirement of IMV. High-dose corticosteroids were associated with lower rates of AKI requiring hemodialysis (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.18-0.63). In COVID-19, corticosteroids more than or equal to 40 mg MED were associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Patient-important outcomes other than mortality in recent ICU trials: Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently focus on all-cause mortality, but other patient-important outcomes are increasingly used and recommended. Their use, however, is not straightforward: choices and definitions, operationalisation of death, handling of missing data, choice of effect measures, and statistical analyses for these outcomes vary greatly.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search 10 selected general and speciality journals for RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients from 2018 and onwards reporting at least 1 patient-important outcome other than mortality (including days alive without life support/days alive and out of hospital-type outcomes, health-related quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes, and other general patient-important outcomes). We will summarise data on outcome measures and definitions, assessment time points, proportions and handling of death, proportions and handling of missing data, and effect measures and statistical methods used for analysis.

DISCUSSION

The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of choices, definitions and handling of patient-important outcomes other than mortality in contemporary RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients. This may guide discussions with patients and relatives, the design of future RCTs, and research on optimal outcome choices and handling.