Alveolar Hemorrhage in Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis: Results of an International Randomized Controlled Trial (PEXIVAS).

Rationale: Diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH) is a life-threatening manifestation of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV). The PEXIVAS (Plasma Exchange and Glucocorticoids in Severe Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis) (NCT00987389) trial was the largest in AAV and the first to enroll participants with DAH requiring mechanical ventilation. Objectives: Evaluate characteristics, treatment effects, and outcomes for patients with AAV with and without DAH. Methods: PEXIVAS randomized 704 participants to plasma exchange (PLEX) or no-PLEX and reduced or standard-dose glucocorticoids (GC). DAH status was defined at enrollment as no-DAH, nonsevere, or severe (room air oxygen saturation of ⩽ 85% as measured by pulse oximetry, or use of mechanical ventilation). Measurements and Main Results: At enrollment, 191 (27.1%) participants had DAH (61 severe, including 29 ventilated) and were younger, more frequently relapsing, PR3 (proteinase 3)-ANCA positive, and had lower serum creatinine but were more frequently dialyzed than participants without DAH (n = 513; 72.9%). Among those with DAH, 8/95 (8.4%) receiving PLEX died within 1 year versus 15/96 (15.6%) with no-PLEX (hazard ratio, 0.52; confidence interval [CI], 0.21-1.24), whereas 13/96 (13.5%) receiving reduced GC died versus 10/95 (10.5%) with standard GC (hazard ratio, 1.33; CI, 0.57-3.13). When ventilated, ventilator-free days were similar with PLEX versus no-PLEX (medians, 25; interquartile range [IQR], 22-26 vs. 22-27) and fewer with reduced GC (median, 23; IQR, 20-25) versus standard GC (median, 26; IQR, 25-28). Treatment effects on mortality did not vary by presence or severity of DAH. Overall, 23/191 (12.0%) with DAH died within 1 year versus 34/513 (6.6%) without DAH. End-stage kidney disease and serious infections did not differ by DAH status or treatments. Conclusions: Patients with AAV and DAH differ from those without DAH in multiple ways. Further data are required to confirm or refute a benefit of PLEX or GC dosing on mortality. Original clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00987389).

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT). METHODS: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.