Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4-0.42 versus crystalloid for fluid resuscitation in patients with severe sepsis: a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial (CHEST) and the Scandinavian Starch in Severe Sepsis/ Septic Shock (6S) trial reported that 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is associated with increased use of renal replacement therapy and death in critically ill patients. Data collection was harmonised between the two trials in order to facilitate a preplanned individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) of patients with severe sepsis. OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE: To publish a statistical analysis plan (SAP) for an IPDMA of patients with severe sepsis enrolled in the 6S trial and the CHEST. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: The SAP is described in broad detail with specific information regarding baseline characteristics and process of care. The outcomes for the trial have been described and are presented as primary, secondary and exploratory outcomes with appropriate comparisons between groups detailed. Subgroups have been defined based on pre-randomisation variables. CONCLUSION: We developed a preanalysis SAP to combine data on patients with severe sepsis from the 6S trial and the CHEST. Prepublication of our SAP will reduce the risk of bias in the reporting of the results and improve confidence in the estimates of effects, allowing comparisons with conventional meta-analyses and assisting in the translation of research findings into clinical practice.