Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

The novel rapid formulation of intravenous dantrolene (NPJ5008) versus standard dantrolene (Dantrium®): A clinical part-randomised phase 1 study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Delays in treating anaesthesia-induced malignant hyperthermia increase risks of complications and death. NPJ5008 is a novel formulation of the indicated treatment, dantrolene sodium, developed to shorten preparation and administration times compared with the reference formulation Dantrium®. The two formulations have been compared preclinically. OBJECTIVES: Assess bioequivalence of overall dantrolene (free acid) exposure of NPJ5008 versus Dantrium® and ascertain similarities in their pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability profiles. Evaluate preparation/administration time savings for the new formulation. DESIGN: Part 1 of this open-label trial in humans was a 1 : 1 randomised crossover study; part 2 was a single-arm study. Trial pharmacy data and laboratory simulations assessed preparation/administration step timings. SETTING: Single clinical centre in the UK, April to July 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one healthy male and female individuals. INTERVENTIONS: Part 1: single intravenous 60 mg dose of NPJ5008 or Dantrium®, sequentially. Part 2: single intravenous 120 mg dose of NPJ5008. Simulation: five vials per formulation using paediatric and adult cannulas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall drug exposure to last measurable concentration (AUC 0 to last ) and extrapolated to infinity (AUC 0 to ∞ ) were primary endpoints. Other pharmacokinetic, clinical and muscle-function parameters, and adverse events, were monitored. RESULTS: Adjusted geometric mean ratios of NPJ5008 versus Dantrium® were 90.24 and 90.44% for AUC 0 to last and AUC 0 to ∞ , respectively, with the 90% confidence intervals (CI) within the 80 to 125% acceptance interval, establishing bioequivalence. No new safety issues emerged: any adverse events were of a similar magnitude across treatments and related to pharmacological properties of dantrolene. Pharmacy and simulation data revealed that every step in preparation and administration was 26 to 69% faster for NPJ5008 than Dantrium®. CONCLUSION: NPJ5008 showed comparable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles to Dantrium®, while reducing dantrolene dose preparation/administration times, potentially reducing patient complications/healthcare resourcing in malignant hyperthermia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-005719-35, MHRA approval.

Barriers, Solutions, and Opportunities for Adapting Critical Care Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation. Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking. Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.