Long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions following a lower versus a higher oxygenation target in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials: A protocol update

BACKGROUND

The Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial was a multicentre, randomised, parallel-group trial of a lower oxygenation target (arterial partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2 ] = 8 kPa) versus a higher oxygenation target (PaO2  = 12 kPa) in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure; the Handling Oxygenation Targets in coronavirus disease 2019 (HOT-COVID) tested the same oxygenation targets in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this study, we aim to evaluate the long-term effects of these oxygenation targets on cognitive and pulmonary function. We hypothesise that a lower oxygenation target throughout the ICU stay may result in cognitive impairment, whereas a higher oxygenation target may result in impaired pulmonary function.

METHODS

This is the updated protocol and statistical analysis plan of two pre-planned secondary outcomes, the long-term cognitive function, and long-term pulmonary function, in the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials. Patients enrolled in both trials at selected Danish sites and surviving to 1 year after randomisation are eligible to participate. A Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status score and a full-body plethysmography, including diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, will be obtained. The last patient is expected to be included in the spring of 2024.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide important information on the long-term effects of a lower versus a higher oxygenation target on long-term cognitive and pulmonary functions in adult ICU patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Real-world causal evidence for planned predictive enrichment in critical care trials: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness due, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Although causal evidence from rich real-world critical care can help overcome these challenges by informing predictive enrichment, no overview exists.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review, systematically searching 10 general and speciality journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We collected trial metadata on 22 variables including recruitment period, intervention type and early stopping (including reasons) as well as data on the use of causal evidence from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment.

RESULTS

We screened 9020 records and included 316 unique RCTs with a total of 268,563 randomised participants. One hundred seventy-three (55%) trials tested drug interventions, 101 (32%) management strategies and 42 (13%) devices. The median duration of enrolment was 2.2 (IQR: 1.3-3.4) years, and 83% of trials randomised less than 1000 participants. Thirty-six trials (11%) were restricted to COVID-19 patients. Of the 55 (17%) trials that stopped early, 23 (42%) used predefined rules; futility, slow enrolment and safety concerns were the commonest stopping reasons. None of the included RCTs had used causal evidence from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment.

CONCLUSION

Work is needed to harness the rich multiverse of critical care data and establish its utility in critical care RCTs. Such work will likely need to leverage methodology from interventional and analytical epidemiology as well as data science.

Association between days alive without life support/out of hospital and health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Trials in critically ill patients increasingly focus on days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive out of hospital (DAOOH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DAWOLS and DAOOH convey more information than mortality and are simpler and faster to collect than HRQoL. However, whether these outcomes are associated with HRQoL is uncertain. We thus aimed to assess the associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH and long-term HRQoL.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial including adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial including adult intensive care unit patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH at day 28 and 90 and long-term HRQoL (after 6 or 12 months) using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level survey (EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) were assessed using flexible models and evaluated using measures of fit and prediction adequacy in both datasets (comprising internal performance and external validation), non-parametric correlation coefficients and graphical presentations.

RESULTS

We found no strong associations between DAWOLS or DAOOH and HRQoL in survivors at HRQoL-follow-up (615 and 1476 patients, respectively). There was substantial variability in outcomes, and predictions from the best fitted models were poor both internally and externally in the other trial dataset, which also showed inadequate calibration. Moderate associations were found when including non-survivors, although predictions remained uncertain and calibration inadequate.

CONCLUSION

DAWOLS and DAOOH were poorly associated with HRQoL in adult survivors of severe or critical illness included in the COVID STEROID 2 and HOT-ICU trials.

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.

Lower versus higher oxygenation targets in hypoxaemic ICU patients after cardiac arrest

AIM

To investigate the effects of lower versus higher oxygenation targets in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure after cardiac arrest.

METHODS

Subgroup analysis of the international Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU (HOT-ICU) trial which randomised 2928 adults with acute hypoxaemia to targets of arterial oxygenation of 8 kPa or 12 kPa in the ICU for up to 90 days. Here, we report all outcomes up to one year in the subgroup of patients enrolled after cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

The HOT-ICU trial included 335 patients after cardiac arrest: 149 in the lower-oxygenation group and 186 in the higher-oxygenation group. At 90 days, 96/147 patients (65.3%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 111/185 patients (60.0%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.28, p=0.32); similar results were found at one year (adjusted RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90-1.21, p=0.53). Serious adverse events (SAEs) in the ICU occurred in 23% of patients in the lower-oxygenation group and 38% in the higher-oxygenation group (adjusted RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.86, p=0.005); the difference was mainly due to more new episodes of shock in the higher-oxygenation group. No statistically significant differences were observed in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A lower oxygenation target in adult ICU patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure after cardiac arrest did not result in lower mortality, but fewer SAEs occurred in this group compared to the higher-oxygenation group. All analyses are exploratory only, large-scale trials are needed for confirmation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT03174002 (registered May 30, 2017); EudraCT 2017-000632-34 (registered February 14, 2017).

An overview of methodological considerations regarding adaptive stopping, arm dropping, and randomization in clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Adaptive features may increase flexibility and efficiency of clinical trials, and improve participants' chances of being allocated to better interventions. Our objective is to provide thorough guidance on key methodological considerations for adaptive clinical trials.

METHODS

We provide an overview of key methodological considerations for clinical trials employing adaptive stopping, adaptive arm dropping, and response-adaptive randomization. We cover pros and cons of different decisions and provide guidance on using simulation to compare different adaptive trial designs. We focus on Bayesian multi-arm adaptive trials, although the same general considerations apply to frequentist adaptive trials.

RESULTS

We provide guidance on 1) interventions and possible common control, 2) outcome selection, follow-up duration and model choice, 3) timing of adaptive analyses, 4) decision rules for adaptive stopping and arm dropping, 5) randomization strategies, 6) performance metrics, their prioritization, and arm selection strategies, and 7) simulations, assessment of performance under different scenarios, and reporting. Finally, we provide an example using a newly developed R simulation engine that may be used to evaluate and compare different adaptive trial designs.

CONCLUSION

This overview may help trialists design better and more transparent adaptive clinical trials and to adequately compare them before initiation.

Causal inference for planning randomised critical care trials: Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness owing, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Planned predictive enrichment based on secondary critical care data (often very rich with respect to both data types and temporal granularity) and causal inference methods may help overcome these challenges, but no overview exists about their use to this end.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review to assess the extent and nature of the use of causal inference from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment of randomised clinical trials in critical care. We will systematically search 10 general and specialty journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We will collect trial metadata (e.g., recruitment period and phase) and, when available, information pertaining to the focus of the review (predictive enrichment based on causal inference estimates from secondary data): causal inference methods, estimation techniques and software used; types of patient populations; data provenance, types and models; and the availability of the data (public or not). The results will be reported in a descriptive manner.

DISCUSSION

The outlined scoping review aims to assess the use of causal inference methods and secondary data for planned predictive enrichment in randomised critical care trials. This will help guide methodological improvements to increase the utility, and facilitate the use, of causal inference estimates when planning such trials in the future.

Long-term effects of lower versus higher oxygenation levels in adult ICU patients - a systematic review

Background

Oxygen therapy is a common treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) with both potentially desirable and undesirable long‐term effects. This systematic review aimed to assess the long‐term outcomes of lower versus higher oxygenation strategies in adult ICU survivors.

Methods

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing lower versus higher oxygen supplementation or oxygenation strategies in adults admitted to the ICU. We searched major electronic databases and trial registers. We included all non‐mortality long‐term outcomes. Prespecified co‐primary outcomes were the long‐term cognitive function measures, the overall score of any valid health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) evaluation, standardised 6‐min walk test, and lung diffusion capacity. The protocol was published and prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021223630).

Results

The review included 17 RCTs comprising 6592 patients, and six trials with 825 randomised patients reported one or more outcomes of interest. We observed no difference in cognitive evaluation via Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (one trial, 409 patients) (mean score: 30.6 ± 4.5 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 30.4 ± 4.3 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged at overall high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was very low. Any difference was neither observed in HRQoL measured via EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 level questionnaire and EQ Visual Analogue Score (one trial, 499 patients) (mean score: 70.1 ± 22 in the lower oxygenation group vs. 67.6 ± 22.4 in the higher oxygenation group). The trial was judged as having high risk of bias, the certainty of evidence was very low. No trial reported neither the standardised 6‐min walk test nor lung diffusion test.

Conclusion

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of a lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy on both the cognitive function and HRQoL. A lower versus a higher oxygenation strategy may have a little to no effect on both outcomes but the certainty of evidence is very low. No evidence was found for the effects on the standardised 6‐min walking test and diffusion capacity test.

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.

Health-related quality of life and days alive without life support or out of hospital: Protocol

BACKGROUND

Mortality is often the primary outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill patients. Due to increased awareness on survivors after critical illness and outcomes other than mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive and out of hospital (DAAOOH) are increasingly being used. DAWOLS and DAAOOH convey more information than mortality, are easier to collect than HRQoL, and are usually assessed at earlier time points, which may be preferable in some situations. However, the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL are uncertain.

METHODS

We will assess associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH at day 28 and 90 (independent variables/predictors) and HRQoL assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) at 6 or 12 months (dependent variables) in two RCTs: the COVID STEROID 2 RCT conducted in adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) RCT conducted in adult intensive care patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. We will describe associations using best-fitting fractional polynomial transformations separately in each dataset, with the resulting models presented and assessed in both datasets graphically and using measures of fit and prediction adequacy (i.e., internal performance and external validation). We will use multiple imputation if missingness exceeds 5%.

DISCUSSION

The outlined study will provide important knowledge on the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL in adult critically ill patients, which may help researchers and clinical trialists prioritise and select outcomes in future RCTs conducted in this population.

The long-term effects of lower versus higher oxygenation levels in adult ICU patients - protocol for a systematic review

Background

Many organs can remain impaired after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) leading to temporal or permanent dysfunctions. Long‐term impairments may be affected by supplemental oxygen, a common treatment in ICU, having both potential beneficial and harmful long‐lasting effects. This systematic review aims to assess the long‐term outcomes of lower versus higher oxygen supplementation and/or oxygenation levels in adults admitted to ICU.

Methods

We will include trials differentiating between a lower and a higher oxygen supplementation or a lower and a higher oxygenation strategy in adults admitted to the ICU. We will search major electronic databases and trial registers for randomised clinical trials. Two authors will independently screen and select references for inclusion using Covidence and predefined data will be extracted. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2. Meta‐analysis will be performed if two or more trials with comparable outcome measures will be included. Otherwise, a narrative description of the trials’ results will be presented instead. To assess the certainty of evidence, we will create a ‘Summary of findings’ table containing all prespecified outcomes using the GRADE system. The protocol is submitted on the PROSPERO database (ID 223630).

Conclusion

No systematic reviews on the impact of oxygen treatment in the ICU on long‐term outcomes, other than mortality and quality of life, have been reported yet. This systematic review will provide an overview of the current evidence and will help future research in the field.

Letter the editor: serious methodological concerns about a recently published meta-analysis on oxygen therapy

In a recent paper, Chen et al. report the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis concerning conservative versus conventional oxygen therapy for critically ill patients. We wish to commend the authors for their interest in the matter. However, the authors appear to misquote findings, fail to report results for all specified analyses, do not identify all relevant trials, have post hoc changed the eligibility criteria, and have seemingly switched directions of effects in analyses of secondary outcomes. These issues have led to incorrect conclusions concerning the effects of targeted oxygen therapy in critically ill patients.

Handling oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19-Protocol and statistical analysis plan in the HOT-COVID trial

Background

Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) primarily affects the lungs and lower airways and may present as hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for supportive treatment. Here, supplemental oxygen remains essential for COVID‐19 patient management, but the optimal dosage is not defined. We hypothesize that targeting an arterial partial pressure of oxygen of 8 kPa throughout ICU admission is superior to targeting 12 kPa.

Methods

The Handling Oxygenation Targets in ICU patients with COVID‐19 (HOT‐COVID) trial, is an investigator‐initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomized, parallel‐group trial comparing a lower oxygenation target versus a higher oxygenation target in adult ICU patients with COVID‐19. The primary outcome is days alive without life‐support (use of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy or vasoactive therapy) at day 90. Secondary outcomes are 90‐day and 1‐year mortality, serious adverse events in the ICU and days alive and out of hospital in the 90‐day period, health‐related quality‐of‐life at 1 year, and health economic analyses. One‐year follow‐up of cognitive and pulmonary function is planned in a subgroup of Danish patients. We will include 780 patients to detect or reject an absolute increase in days alive without life‐support of 7 days with an α of 5% and a β of 20%. An interim analysis is planned after 90‐day follow‐up of 390 patients.

Conclusions

The HOT‐COVID trial will provide patient‐important data on the effect of two oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID‐19 and hypoxia. This protocol paper describes the background, design and statistical analysis plan for the trial.

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.