Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Early Active Mobilization during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness often develops in patients who are undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Early active mobilization may mitigate ICU-acquired weakness, increase survival, and reduce disability. METHODS: We randomly assigned 750 adult patients in the ICU who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation to receive increased early mobilization (sedation minimization and daily physiotherapy) or usual care (the level of mobilization that was normally provided in each ICU). The primary outcome was the number of days that the patients were alive and out of the hospital at 180 days after randomization. RESULTS: The median number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital was 143 (interquartile range, 21 to 161) in the early-mobilization group and 145 days (interquartile range, 51 to 164) in the usual-care group (absolute difference, -2.0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10 to 6; P = 0.62). The mean (±SD) daily duration of active mobilization was 20.8±14.6 minutes and 8.8±9.0 minutes in the two groups, respectively (difference, 12.0 minutes per day; 95% CI, 10.4 to 13.6). A total of 77% of the patients in both groups were able to stand by a median interval of 3 days and 5 days, respectively (difference, -2 days; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.6). By day 180, death had occurred in 22.5% of the patients in the early-mobilization group and in 19.5% of those in the usual-care group (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.65). Among survivors, quality of life, activities of daily living, disability, cognitive function, and psychological function were similar in the two groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 7 patients in the early-mobilization group and in 1 patient in the usual-care group. Adverse events that were potentially due to mobilization (arrhythmias, altered blood pressure, and desaturation) were reported in 34 of 371 patients (9.2%) in the early-mobilization group and in 15 of 370 patients (4.1%) in the usual-care group (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, an increase in early active mobilization did not result in a significantly greater number of days that patients were alive and out of the hospital than did the usual level of mobilization in the ICU. The intervention was associated with increased adverse events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; TEAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03133377.).

Impact of High Dose Early Mobilization on Outcomes for Patients with Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the TEAM Trial.

RATIONALE: Patients with diabetes represent almost 20% of all ICU admissions and might respond differently to high dose early active mobilization. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether diabetes modified the relationship between the dose of early mobilization on clinical outcomes in the TEAM trial. METHODS: All TEAM trial patients were included. The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital at day 180. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality and long-term functional outcomes at day 180. Logistic and median regression models were used to explore the effect of high dose early mobilization on outcomes by diabetes status. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All 741 patients from the original trial were included. Of these, 159 patients (21.4%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes had a lower number of days alive and out of hospital at day 180 (124 [0-153] vs. 147 [82-164], p = 0.013), and higher 180-day mortality (30% vs. 18%, p = 0.044). In patients receiving high dose early mobilization, days alive and out of hospital at day 180 was 73.0 (0.0 - 144.5) in patients with diabetes and 146.5 (95.8 - 163.0) in patients without diabetes (p for interaction = 0.108). However, in patients with diabetes, high dose early mobilization increased the odds of mortality at 180 days (adjusted odds ratio 3.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-7.61, p value for interaction, 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of the TEAM trial, in patients with diabetes, a high dose early mobilization strategy did not significantly decrease the number of days alive and out of hospital at day 180 but it increased 180-day mortality.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours after starting organ support in the intensive care unit (ICU), were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight), sarilumab (400 mg), or standard care (control). The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with predefined criteria for superiority, efficacy, equivalence, or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTS: Both tocilizumab and sarilumab met the predefined criteria for efficacy. At that time, 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab, and 402 to control. The median number of organ support-free days was 10 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the tocilizumab group, 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 16) in the sarilumab group, and 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 15) in the control group. The median adjusted cumulative odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95% credible interval, 1.17 to 2.91) for sarilumab as compared with control, yielding posterior probabilities of superiority to control of more than 99.9% and of 99.5%, respectively. An analysis of 90-day survival showed improved survival in the pooled interleukin-6 receptor antagonist groups, yielding a hazard ratio for the comparison with the control group of 1.61 (95% credible interval, 1.25 to 2.08) and a posterior probability of superiority of more than 99.9%. All secondary analyses supported efficacy of these interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in ICUs, treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab improved outcomes, including survival. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Sex Differences in Vital Organ Support Provided to ICU Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill women may receive less vital organ support than men but the mortality impact of this differential treatment remains unclear. We aimed to quantify sex differences in vital organ support provided to adult ICU patients and describe the relationship between sex, vital organ support, and mortality. DESIGN: In this retrospective observational study, we examined the provision of invasive ventilation (primary outcome), noninvasive ventilation, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or any one of these five vital organ supports in women compared with men. We performed logistic regression investigating the association of sex with each vital organ support, adjusted for illness severity, diagnosis, preexisting treatment limitation, year, and hospital. We performed logistic regression for hospital mortality adjusted for the same variables, stratified by vital organ support (secondary outcome). SETTING AND PATIENTS: ICU admissions in the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database 2018-2021. This registry records admissions from 90% of ICUs in the two nations. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We examined 699,535 ICU admissions (43.7% women) to 199 ICUs. After adjustment, women were less likely than men to receive invasive ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 99% CI, 0.63-0.65) and each other organ support except ECMO. Women had lower adjusted hospital mortality overall (OR, 0.94; 99% CI, 0.91-0.97). Among patients who did not receive any organ support, women had significantly lower adjusted hospital mortality (OR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.76-0.88); among patients who received any organ support women and men were equally likely to die (OR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.97-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women received significantly less vital organ support than men in ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. However, our findings suggest that women may not be harmed by this conservative approach to treatment.

Psychometric properties of health-related quality of life instruments used in survivors of critical illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a patient-reported measure of health status. However, research on the psychometric properties of HRQoL instruments used post-critical care is less common. We conducted a systematic review assessing the psychometric properties of HRQoL instruments used in adult survivors following critical illness. METHODS: Three databases were systematically searched between 1990 and June 2022. Screening articles for eligibility, we selected either development studies for new tools or studies that evaluated psychometric properties, and whose target population represented adult survivors following critical illness. Methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-Based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The results of each psychometric property were then assessed for criteria of good psychometric properties (sufficient, insufficient or indeterminate) and qualitatively summarised. Finally, we graded the quality of the evidence using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 13 eligible studies from 2,983 records identifying 10 HRQoL instruments used post-critical illness. While high-quality evidence for the considered PROMs was limited primarily due to risk of bias, seven instruments demonstrated sufficient levels of reliability, four instruments presented sufficient hypothesis testing, and two instruments showed sufficient responsiveness. Except the Short Form-36, evidence for psychometric properties of other individual measures was limited to a few studies. CONCLUSION: There was limited evidence demonstrated for the psychometric properties of the included PROMs evaluating HRQoL. Further research is warranted to evaluate the psychometric properties of HRQoL measures, strengthening the evidence for administering these instruments in survivors following critical illness.

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with hematological malignancies are likely to develop hypogammaglobulinemia. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is commonly given to prevent infections, but its overall costs and cost-effectiveness are unknown. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to assess the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig, administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg), in adults with hematological malignancies. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, and only two economic evaluations were identified; one cost-utility analysis (CUA) of IVIg versus no Ig, and another comparing IVIg with SCIg. The quality of the evidence was low. Compared to no treatment, Ig reduced hospitalization rates. One study reported no significant change in hospitalizations following a program to reduce IVIg use, and an observational study comparing IVIg with SCIg suggested that there were more hospitalizations with SCIg but lower overall costs per patient. The CUA comparing IVIg versus no Ig suggested that IVIg treatment was not cost-effective, and the other CUA comparing IVIg to SCIg found that home-based SCIg was more cost-effective than IVIg, but both studies had serious limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlighted key gaps in the literature: the cost-effectiveness of Ig in patients with hematological malignancies is very uncertain. Despite increasing Ig use worldwide, there are limited data regarding the total direct and indirect costs of treatment, and the optimal use of Ig and downstream implications for healthcare resource use and costs remain unclear. Given the paucity of evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig treatment in this population, further health economic research is warranted.

Sodium Bicarbonate for Metabolic Acidosis in the ICU: Results of a Pilot Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the best population, design of the intervention, and to assess between-group biochemical separation, in preparation for a future phase III trial. DESIGN: Investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pilot randomized double-blind trial. SETTING: Eight ICUs in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, with participants recruited from April 2021 to August 2022. PATIENTS: Thirty patients greater than or equal to 18 years, within 48 hours of admission to the ICU, receiving a vasopressor, and with metabolic acidosis (pH < 7.30, base excess [BE] < -4 mEq/L, and Pa co2 < 45 mm Hg). INTERVENTIONS: Sodium bicarbonate or placebo (5% dextrose). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULT: The primary feasibility aim was to assess eligibility, recruitment rate, protocol compliance, and acid-base group separation. The primary clinical outcome was the number of hours alive and free of vasopressors on day 7. The recruitment rate and the enrollment-to-screening ratio were 1.9 patients per month and 0.13 patients, respectively. Time until BE correction (median difference, -45.86 [95% CI, -63.11 to -28.61] hr; p < 0.001) and pH correction (median difference, -10.69 [95% CI, -19.16 to -2.22] hr; p = 0.020) were shorter in the sodium bicarbonate group, and mean bicarbonate levels in the first 24 hours were higher (median difference, 6.50 [95% CI, 4.18 to 8.82] mmol/L; p < 0.001). Seven days after randomization, patients in the sodium bicarbonate and placebo group had a median of 132.2 (85.6-139.1) and 97.1 (69.3-132.4) hours alive and free of vasopressor, respectively (median difference, 35.07 [95% CI, -9.14 to 79.28]; p = 0.131). Recurrence of metabolic acidosis in the first 7 days of follow-up was lower in the sodium bicarbonate group (3 [20.0%] vs. 15 [100.0%]; p < 0.001). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm the feasibility of a larger phase III sodium bicarbonate trial; eligibility criteria may require modification to facilitate recruitment.

Sex Differences in Mortality of ICU Patients According to Diagnosis-related Sex Balance.

Rationale: Women have worse outcomes than men in several conditions more common in men, including cardiac surgery and burns. Objectives: To describe the relationship between sex balance within each diagnostic group of ICU admissions, defined as the percentage of patients who were women, and hospital mortality of women compared with men with that same diagnosis. Methods: We studied ICU patients in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society's Adult Patient Database (2011-2020). We performed mixed effects logistic regression for hospital mortality adjusted for sex, illness severity, ICU lead time, admission year, and hospital site. We compared sex balance with the adjusted hospital mortality of women compared with men for each diagnosis using weighted linear regression. Measurements and Main Results: There were 1,450,782 admissions (42.1% women), with no difference in the adjusted hospital mortality of women compared with men overall (odds ratio, 0.99; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1). As the percentage of women within each diagnosis increased, the adjusted mortality of women compared with men with that same diagnosis decreased (regression coefficient, -0.015; 99% CI; -0.020 to -0.011; P < 0.001), and the illness severity of women compared with men at ICU admission decreased (regression coefficient, -0.0026; 99% CI, -0.0035 to -0.0018; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Sex balance in diagnostic groups was inversely associated with both the adjusted mortality and illness severity of women compared with men. In diagnoses with relatively few women, women were more likely than men to die. In diagnoses with fewer men, men were more likely than women to die.

Comparison of 6-Month Outcomes of Survivors of COVID-19 versus Non-COVID-19 Critical Illness.

Rationale: The outcomes of survivors of critical illness due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) compared with non-COVID-19 are yet to be established. Objectives: We aimed to investigate new disability at 6 months in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Australian ICUs with COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Methods: We included critically ill patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 from two prospective observational studies. Patients were eligible if they were adult (age ⩾ 8 yr) and received ⩾24 hours of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were eligible with a positive laboratory PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Measurements and Main Results: Demographic, intervention, and hospital outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Survivors were contacted by telephone for functional outcomes with trained outcome assessors using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Between March 6, 2020, and April 21, 2021, 120 critically ill patients with COVID-19, and between August 2017 and January 2019, 199 critically ill patients without COVID-19, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients with COVID-19 were older (median [interquartile range], 62 [55-71] vs. 58 [44-69] yr; P = 0.019) with a lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (17 [13-20] vs. 19 [15-23]; P = 0.011). Although duration of ventilation was longer in patients with COVID-19 than in those without COVID-19 (12 [5-19] vs. 4.8 [2.3-8.8] d; P < 0.001), 180-day mortality was similar between the groups (39/120 [32.5%] vs. 70/199 [35.2%]; P = 0.715). The incidence of death or new disability at 180 days was similar (58/93 [62.4%] vs. 99/150 [66/0%]; P = 0.583). Conclusions: At 6 months, there was no difference in new disability for patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04401254).

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Sex Differences in Treatment of Adult Intensive Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and synthesize the available literature on sex differences in the treatment of adult ICU patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened publications to identify observational studies of adult ICU patients that explicitly examined the association between sex and ICU treatment-specifically, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and length of stay. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data independently and in duplicate: mean age, illness severity, use of mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy, and length of stay in ICU and hospital. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences between women and men. DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened 4,098 publications, identifying 21 eligible studies with 545,538 participants (42.7% women). The study populations ranged from 246 to 261,255 participants (median 4,420). Most studies (76.2%) were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly representativeness or comparability. Women were less likely than men to receive invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; I2 = 90.4%) or renal replacement therapy (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90; I2 = 76.2%). ICU length of stay was shorter in women than men (mean difference, -0.24 d; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.12; I2 = 89.9%). These findings persisted in meta-analysis of data adjusted for illness severity and other confounders and also in sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias. There was no significant sex difference in duration of mechanical ventilation or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Women were less likely than men to receive mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy and had shorter ICU length of stay than men. There is substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in the literature; however, these findings persisted in sensitivity analyses.

Comparison of 6-month outcomes of sepsis versus non-sepsis critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Data on long-term outcomes after sepsis-associated critical illness have mostly come from small cohort studies, with no information about the incidence of new disability. We investigated whether sepsis-associated critical illness was independently associated with new disability at 6 months after ICU admission compared with other types of critical illness. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study in six metropolitan intensive care units in Australia. Adult patients were eligible if they had been admitted to the ICU and received more than 24 h of mechanical ventilation. There was no intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome was new disability measured with the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) 12 level score compared between baseline and 6 months. Between enrollment and follow-up at 6 months, 222/888 (25%) patients died, 100 (35.5%) with sepsis and 122 (20.1%) without sepsis (P < 0.001). Among survivors, there was no difference for the incidence of new disability at 6 months with or without sepsis, 42/106 (39.6%) and 106/300 (35.3%) (RD, 0.00 (- 10.29 to 10.40), P = 0.995), respectively. In addition, there was no difference in the severity of disability, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, return to work, financial distress or cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to mechanically ventilated patients of similar acuity and length of stay without sepsis, patients with sepsis admitted to ICU have an increased risk of death, but survivors have a similar risk of new disability at 6 months. Trial registration NCT03226912, registered July 24, 2017.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

The impact of distance on post-ICU disability.

BACKGROUND: Nonurban residential living is associated with adverse outcomes for a number of chronic health conditions. However, it is unclear what effect it has amongst survivors of critical illness. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients living greater than 50 km from the treating intensive care unit (ICU) have disability outcomes at 6 months that differ from people living within 50 km. METHODS: This was a multicentre, prospective cohort study conducted in five metropolitan ICUs. Participants were adults admitted to the ICU, who received >24 h of mechanical ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. In a secondary analysis of these data, the cohort was dichotomised based on residential distance from the treating ICU: <50 km and ≥50 km. The primary outcome was patient-reported disability using the 12-item World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). This was recorded at 6 months after ICU admission by telephone interview. Secondary outcomes included health status as measured by EQ-5D-5L return to work and psychological function as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between distance from the ICU and moderate to severe disability, adjusted for potential confounders. Variables included in the multivariable model were deemed to be clinically relevant and had baseline imbalance between groups (p < 0.10). These included marital status and hours of mechanical ventilation. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted using distance in kilometres as a continuous variable. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were enrolled, and 169 (65%) lived within 50 km of the treating ICU and 93 (35%) lived ≥50 km from the treating ICU (interquartile range [IQR] 10-664 km). There was no difference in patient-reported disability at 6 months between patients living <50 km and those living ≥50 km (WHODAS total disability % [IQR] 10.4 [2.08-25] v 14.6 [2.08-20.8], P = 0.74). There was also no difference between groups for the six major life domains of the WHODAS. There was no difference in rates of anxiety or depression as measured by HADS score (HADS anxiety median [IQR] 4 [1-7] v 3 [1-7], P = 0.60) (HADS depression median [IQR] 3 [1-6] v 3 [1-6], P = 0.62); health status as measured by EQ-5D (mean [SD] 66.7 [20] v 69.8 [22.2], P = 0.24); or health-related unemployment (% (N) 39 [26] v 25 [29.1], P = 0.61). After adjusting for confounders, living ≥50 km from the treating ICU was not associated with increased disability (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.16; P = 0.13) CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of intensive care in Victoria, Australia, who live at least 50 km from the treating ICU did not have greater disability than people living less than 50 km at 6 months after discharge. Living 50 km or more from the treating ICU was not associated with disability, nor was it associated with anxiety or depression, health status, or unemployment due to health.

The impact of COVID-19 critical illness on new disability, functional outcomes and return to work at 6 months: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.