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

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.

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.

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.

Oxygen Supplementation and Hyperoxia in Critically Ill Cardiac Patients: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Practice

Oxygen supplementation has been a mainstay in the management of patients with acute cardiac disease. While hypoxia is known to be detrimental, the adverse effects of artificially high oxygen levels (hyperoxia) have only recently been recognized. Hyperoxia may induce harmful hemodynamic effects, including peripheral and coronary vasoconstriction, and direct cellular toxicity through the production of reactive oxygen species. In addition, emerging evidence has shown that hyperoxia is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Thus, it is essential for the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) clinician to understand the available evidence and titrate oxygen therapies to specific goals. This review summarizes the pathophysiology of oxygen within the cardiovascular system and the association between supplemental oxygen and hyperoxia in patients with common CICU diagnoses, including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, shock, cardiac arrest, pulmonary hypertension, and respiratory failure. Finally, we highlight lessons learned from available trials, gaps in knowledge, and future directions.

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.