Automatic Population of the Case Report Forms for an International Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To automatically populate the case report forms (CRFs) for an international, pragmatic, multifactorial, response-adaptive, Bayesian COVID-19 platform trial. METHODS: The locations of focus included 27 hospitals and 2 large electronic health record (EHR) instances (1 Cerner Millennium and 1 Epic) that are part of the same health system in the United States. This paper describes our efforts to use EHR data to automatically populate four of the trial's forms: baseline, daily, discharge, and response-adaptive randomization. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and May 2022, 417 patients from the UPMC health system were enrolled in the trial. A MySQL-based extract, transform, and load pipeline automatically populated 499 of 526 CRF variables. The populated forms were statistically and manually reviewed and then reported to the trial's international data coordinating center. CONCLUSIONS: We accomplished automatic population of CRFs in a large platform trial and made recommendations for improving this process for future trials.

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.).

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).

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.

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS: In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS: Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION: Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING: None.

ICU nurse preceptors' perceptions of benefits, rewards, supports and commitment to the preceptor role: A mixed-methods study.

This paper explores Intensive Care nurses' perceptions of benefits, rewards, supports and their commitment to the role of preceptor. A questionnaire, consisting of Likert-scales and open-ended questions was used to collect data during October 2018. Preceptors were committed to their role. Correlations were found between preceptors' perceptions of benefits or rewards and commitment to the role (p = 0.003, r2 = 0.39) and perceptions of support and commitment to the role (p = .001, r2 = 0.46). Altruistic benefits were perceived to be of the greatest importance. Participants who recognised the importance of preceptorship for the organisation were more likely to be committed to the role. Eighty-three percent of respondents reported a lack of consistency in allocation to work with their preceptee. Qualitative results elucidated themes of helping, personal professional development, the opportunity to teach, and organisational improvement. Supports as barriers and enablers to successful preceptorship were discussed in terms of peer and leadership support, role preparation, the logistics of the environment, role conflict, and consistency of allocation to work in a preceptorship dyad. Commitment to the preceptor role may be increased by highlighting organisational benefits of preceptorship, increasing consistency of contact between preceptorship dyads, and increasing access to supports and preparation.

Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system.

The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.

Frailty status, timely goals of care documentation and clinical outcomes in older hospitalised medical patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalised frail older patients are at risk of clinical deterioration. Early goals of care (GOC) documentation is vital to avoid futile/unwarranted interventions in the event of deterioration. AIMS: To investigate the impact of frailty on timely GOC and its association with clinical outcomes in hospitalised older patients. METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective study of all medical patients aged ≥80 years admitted to the acute medical unit between 1/3/2015 and 31/8/2015, with GOC derived from electronic records. Frailty was measured using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) derived from hospital coding data. Primary outcome compared proportions of timely GOC within 72-h between frail (HFRS ≥ 5) and non-frail (HFRS < 5) patients. Exploratory secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, rapid response calls (RRC), prolonged length of stay (LOS) and 28-day readmission rates. RESULTS: Of the 1118 admitted patients, 529 (47.3%) were frail. Timely GOC occurred in 50% (559/1118), more commonly in frail patients (283/529, 53.5%) than non-frail patients (276/589, 46.9%), P = 0.027. Frailty was positively associated with timely GOC independent of age and gender (odds ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-163; P = 0.041). In univariable analyses, timely GOC was associated with greater in-hospital mortality, RRC, and hospital LOS in both frail and non-frail patients (all P < 0.05) and greater 28-day readmissions only among frail patients (P = 0.028). Multivariable regression demonstrated that timely GOC was associated only with in-hospital mortality in both frail and non-frail patients, independent of age and gender. CONCLUSION: Older frail hospitalised patients were more likely to have timely GOC than older non-frail patients. Timely GOC in such patients may avoid burdensome treatments.

Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Corticosteroid therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To examine whether the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization varies between subgroups related to treatment characteristics, disease severity at the time of randomization, patient characteristics, or risk of bias. To examine the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on serious adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Both placebo-controlled and open-label trials are eligible. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised, critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention groups will have received therapeutic doses of a steroid (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone) with IV or oral administration immediately after randomization. The comparator groups will have received standard of care or usual care or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME: All-cause mortality up to 28 days after randomization. SEARCH METHODS: Systematic searching of clinicaltrials.gov , EudraCT, the WHO ISRCTN registry, and the Chinese clinical trials registry. Additionally, research and WHO networks will be asked for relevant trials. RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENTS: These will be based on the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and will use structured information provided by the trial investigators on a form designed for this prospective meta-analysis. We will use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Trial investigators will provide data on the numbers of participants who did and did not experience each outcome according to intervention group, overall and in specified subgroups. We will conduct fixed-effect (primary analysis) and random-effects (Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and Hartung-Knapp adjustment) meta-analyses. We will quantify inconsistency in effects between trials using I2 statistics. Evidence for subgroup effects will be quantified by ratios of odds ratios comparing effects in the subgroups, and corresponding interaction p-values. Comparisons between subgroups defined by trial characteristics will be made using random-effects meta-regression. Comparisons between subgroups defined by patient characteristics will be made by estimating trial-specific ratios of odds ratios comparing intervention effects between subgroups then combining these using random-effects meta-analysis. Steroid interventions will be classified as high or low dose according to whether the dose is greater or less than or equal to 400 mg hydrocortisone per day or equivalent. We will use network meta-analysis methods to make comparisons between the effects of high and low dose steroid interventions (because one trial randomized participants to both low and high dose steroid arms). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197242 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol for this prospective meta-analysis is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). To expedite dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol for the systematic review.

The REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) Study. Rationale and Design.

There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Predictors of ICU admission and long-term outcomes in overdose presentations to Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of patients presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) following overdoses; to identify risk factors for intensive care unit (ICU) admission among these patients; and to identify the rate of mortality and repeat overdose presentations over four years. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to ED following drug overdose during 2014 were included. Data were collected from medical notes and hospital databases. RESULTS: During the study period, 654 patients presented to ED 800 times following overdose. Seventy-eight (9.8%) resulted in ICU admission, and 59 (7.4%) required intubation; 57.2% had no history of overdose presentations, and 72.9% involved patients with known psychiatric illness. Overdose of atypical antipsychotics (AAP), age and history of prior overdose independently predicted ICU admission. A third of patients (n = 196, 30%) had subsequent presentations to ED following overdose, in the four years from their index presentation, with an all-cause four-year mortality of 3.4% (n = 22). CONCLUSION: A history of overdose, use of AAP and older age were risk factors for ICU admission following ED presentations. Over a third of patients had repeat overdose presentation in the four-year follow-up with a mortality of 3.4%.

Internet health information use by surrogate decision makers of patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a multicentre survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use, understanding, trust and influence of the internet and other sources of health information used by the next of kin (NOK) of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Multicentre structured survey. SETTING: The ICUs of 13 public and private Australian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: NOK who self-identified as the primary surrogate decision maker for a patient admitted to the ICU. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency, understanding, trust and influence of online sources of health information, and the quality of health websites visited using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health websites. RESULTS: There were 473 survey responses. The median ICU admission days and number of ICU visits by the NOK at the time of completing the survey was 3 (IQR, 2-6 days) and 4 (IQR, 2-7), respectively. The most commonly reported sources of health information used very frequently were the ICU nurse (55.6%), ICU doctor (38.7%), family (23.3%), hospital doctor (21.4%), and the internet (11.3%). Compared with the 243 NOK (51.6%) not using the internet, NOK using the internet were less likely to report complete understanding (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88), trust (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19-0.59), or influence (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.88) associated with the ICU doctor. Overall, the quality of the 40 different reported websites accessed was moderately high. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of ICU NOK report using the internet as a source of health information. Internet use is associated with lower reported understanding, trust and influence of the ICU doctor.

How do intensivists treat their patients, their loved ones and themselves? Results of a survey of intensivists facing an evolving hypothetical clinical scenario.

AIM: Prognostication and decisions regarding ineffectiveness of treatment remain challenging for clinicians and are some of the most difficult yet understudied aspects of clinical medicine. We sought to explore what management intensivists would advocate for a patient, for themselves or for a loved one at different points in an evolving hypothetical clinical scenario of a critically ill patient admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHOD: An online survey was constructed and was circulated to fellows of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) of Australia and New Zealand. Participants were presented with an evolving hypothetical clinical scenario of a patient admitted to ICU following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) at four time-points (day 3,7,14 and 28) during their conceptual ICU stay. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six CICM fellows participated. Survey responses revealed significant differences in the proportion of respondents that would advocate for aggressive treatment, conservative management or withdrawal of treatment for themselves compared to patients; for a family member as compared to a patient at several time points. CONCLUSIONS: The management that intensivists would advocate for patients differs from the management that they would advocate for their loved ones and themselves.

A practice survey of airway management in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise intubation practices in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate clinician support for establishing airway management guidelines in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. DESIGN: An online survey was designed, piloted and distributed to members of the mailing list of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS), with medical members invited to participate. Respondents were excluded if their primary practice was in paediatric ICUs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected included the respondents' demographics and airway management practices and whether respondents supported the formulation of Australian and New Zealand intubation guidelines for critically ill patients in ICU and mandatory airway management training for Fellows of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (CICM). RESULTS: Over a quarter of ANZICS medical members completed the survey (203/756, 27%), of which 166 (22%) were included in the analysis. The majority of respondents were male (80%), consultant intensivists (80%), and from tertiary centres (59%). Seventeen per cent worked concurrently in ICU and anaesthesia, and 52% had not completed formal airway training within the previous 3 years. Propofol was the preferred induction agent (67%) and rocuronium was the preferred neuromuscular blocking agent (58%). Videolaryngoscopy was immediately available in 97% of the ICUs and used first-line by 43% of respondents. Sixty-one per cent of respondents were in favour of the development of Australian and New Zealand ICU airway management guidelines, and 80% agreed that airway management training should be mandatory for CICM Fellows. CONCLUSION: Variation of practices in intubation was noted in the participants. Approximately 61% of respondents supported the development of Australian and New Zealand ICU airway management guidelines, and 80% supported mandatory airway management training.

ICU nurses feel unprepared to care for patients with mental illness: A survey of nurses' attitudes, knowledge, and skills.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a cohort of Australian nurses towards caring for patients with mental illness in the intensive care unit. RESEARCH DESIGN: A questionnaire was developed and distributed via internal email to all nurses working in the study intensive care unit. Responses were anonymous. SETTING: A metropolitan intensive care unit located in Melbourne, Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intenisve care nurses completed a 76-question self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty intensive care nurses completed the survey, a response rate of 35.7% (n = 40/112). Respondents were predominantly female (82.5%) and held a post-graduate qualification (62.5%). ICU nurses felt that they needed further training and education to care for patients with mental illness in the intensive care unit. While respondents were empathetic to this patient group, negative stereotypes and stigma were reported by some participants. The pressures of the environment were perceived barriers to delivering optimal person-centred care for patients with mental illness. CONCLUSION: This sample of nurses felt they require education and support in order to care for patients with mental illness in the intenisve care unit. Further education may also help to reduce negative perceptions of this patient group.

"Likely overassistance" during invasive pressure support ventilation in patients in the intensive care unit: a multicentre prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of "likely overassistance" (categorised by respiratory rate [RR] ≤ 17 breaths/min or rapid shallow breathing index [RSBI] ≤ 37 breaths/min/L) during invasive pressure support ventilation (PSV), and the additional prevalence of fixed ventilator settings. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective observational study of invasive PSV practice in six general Victorian intensive care units with blinding of staff members to data collection. PATIENTS: At each hospital, investigators collected data between 11 am and 2 pm on all invasive PSV-treated patients on 60 sequential days, excluding weekends and public holidays, between 22 February and 30 August 2017. Each patient was included for maximum of 3 days. MAIN RESULTS: We studied 231 patients, with a total of 379 observations episodes over the study period. There were 131 patients (56.7%) with at least one episode of RR ≤ 17 breaths/min; 146 patients (63.2%) with at least one episode of RSBI ≤ 37 breaths/min/L, and 85 patients (36.8%) with at least one episode of combined RR ≤ 17 breaths/min and RSBI ≤ 37 breaths/min/L. Moreover, the total number of observations with "likely overassistance" (RR ≤ 17 or RSBI ≤ 37 breaths/min/L) was 178 (47%) and 204 (53.8%), respectively; while for both combined criteria, it was 154 (40.6%). We also found that 10 cmH2O pressure support was delivered on 210 of the observations (55.4%) and adjusted in less than 25% of observations. Finally, less than half (179 observations) of all PSV-delivered tidal volumes (VT) were at the recommended value of 6-8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) and more than 20% (79 observations) were at ≥ 10 mL/kg PBW. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of Victorian hospitals in Australia, during invasive PSV, "likely overassistance" was common, and the pressure support level was delivered in a standardised and unadjusted manner at 10 cmH2O, resulting in the frequent delivery of potentially injurious VT.

Cytomegalovirus viral load parameters associated with earlier initiation of pre-emptive therapy after solid organ transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) can be managed by monitoring HCMV DNA in the blood and giving valganciclovir when viral load exceeds a defined value. We hypothesised that such pre-emptive therapy should occur earlier than the standard 3000 genomes/ml (2520 IU/ml) when a seropositive donor transmitted virus to a seronegative recipient (D+R-) following solid organ transplantation (SOT). METHODS: Our local protocol was changed so that D+R- SOT patients commenced valganciclovir once the viral load exceeded 200 genomes/ml; 168 IU/ml (new protocol). The decision point remained at 3000 genomes/ml (old protocol) for the other two patient subgroups (D+R+, D-R+). Virological outcomes were assessed three years later, when 74 D+R- patients treated under the old protocol could be compared with 67 treated afterwards. The primary outcomes were changes in peak viral load, duration of viraemia and duration of treatment in the D+R- group. The secondary outcome was the proportion of D+R- patients who developed subsequent viraemia episodes. FINDINGS: In the D+R- patients, the median values of peak viral load (30,774 to 11,135 genomes/ml, p<0.0215) were significantly reduced on the new protocol compared to the old, but the duration of viraemia and duration of treatment were not. Early treatment increased subsequent episodes of viraemia from 33/58 (57%) to 36/49 (73%) of patients (p< 0.0743) with a significant increase (p = 0.0072) in those episodes that required treatment (16/58; 27% versus 26/49; 53%). Median peak viral load increased significantly (2,103 to 3,934 genomes/ml, p<0.0249) in the D+R+ but not in the D-R+ patient subgroups. There was no change in duration of viraemia or duration of treatment for any patient subgroup. INTERPRETATION: Pre-emptive therapy initiated at the first sign of viraemia post-transplant significantly reduced the peak viral load but increased later episodes of viraemia, consistent with the hypothesis of reduced antigenic stimulation of the immune system.

Prediction of ICU Delirium: Validation of Current Delirium Predictive Models in Routine Clinical Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ability of available delirium risk assessment tools to identify patients at risk of delirium in an Australian tertiary ICU. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: An Australian tertiary ICU. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to the study ICU between May 8, 2017, and December 31, 2017, were assessed bid for delirium throughout their ICU stay using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. Patients were included in this study if they remained in ICU for over 24 hours and were excluded if they were delirious on ICU admission, or if they were unable to be assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU during their ICU stay. Delirium risk was calculated for each patient using the prediction of delirium in ICU patients, early prediction of delirium in ICU patients, and Lanzhou models. Data required for delirium predictor models were obtained retrospectively from patients medical records. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 803 ICU admissions during the study period, of which 455 met inclusion criteria. 35.2% (n = 160) were Confusion Assessment Method for ICU positive during their ICU admission. Delirious patients had significantly higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III scores (median, 72 vs 54; p < 0.001), longer ICU (median, 4.8 vs 1.8 d; p < 0.001) and hospital stay (16.0 vs 8.16 d; p < 0.001), greater requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation (70% vs 21.4%; p < 0.001), and increased ICU mortality (6.3% vs 2.4%; p = 0.037). All models included in this study displayed moderate to good discriminative ability. Area under the receiver operating curve for the prediction of delirium in ICU patients was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83); recalibrated prediction of delirium in ICU patients was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83); early prediction of delirium in ICU patients was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.77); and the Lanzhou model was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The predictive models evaluated in this study demonstrated moderate to good discriminative ability to predict ICU patients' risk of developing delirium. Models calculated at 24-hours post-ICU admission appear to be more accurate but may have limited utility in practice.