The OPI•AID Zone Tool as a composite outcome for postoperative pain management quality-A protocol for an observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Managing postoperative pain while minimizing opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) remains a significant challenge. The OPI•AID Zone Tool is proposed as a novel clinical decision support tool that - both graphically and in a scoring-system - represents the relationship between pain management and the occurrence of ORADEs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes in postoperative care. The OPI•AID Zone Tool places pain score on the x-axis and an ORADE score on the y-axis, and stratifies patients into five zones to reflect the composite impact of pain severity and ORADEs on the quality of postoperative patient care. The study will have two key aims: (1) to explore whether the OPI•AID Zone Tool can function as a composite outcome measure for postoperative pain and ORADEs, and (2) to evaluate the use of the OPI•AID Zone Tool in visual presentations and for evaluation of patients' postoperative pain management quality. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study will include 200 adults undergoing various surgical procedures in general anesthesia with a subsequent stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) at Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. Substudy 1 primary outcome: To assess whether a zone score in the OPI•AID Zone Tool is associated with patient-perceived health (EQ VAS), quality of recovery (QoR-PACU), and time to discharge readiness in PACU, and if the zone score has a stronger association than pain and ORADE score in themselves. Substudy 2 primary outcome: To assess how the use of intraoperative non-opioid analgesics impact where patients are placed in the OPI•AID Zone Tool's XY scatterplot right after surgery. To assess if patients who receive more comprehensive non-opioid analgesic basic regimens, generally fall into lower zones. CONCLUSION: The OPI•AID Zone Tool could potentially be a valuable clinical decision-making tool for optimizing postoperative care by simultaneously addressing pain management and the risk of ORADEs. By computing a composite measure of these two critical outcomes, the tool could guide more nuanced and patient-centered analgesic regimens, potentially improving patient satisfaction and operational efficiency in postoperative settings. The tool's applicability will be explored in this observational pilot and followed up in a planned series of studies (opiaid.dk).

Intravenous MELAtonin for prevention of Postoperative Agitation and Emergence Delirium in children (MELA-PAED): A protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation and delirium in children remain a common clinical challenge in the post-anesthetic care unit. Preoperative oral melatonin has been suggested as an effective preventive drug with a favorable safety profile. The oral bioavailability of melatonin, however, is low. Therefore, the MELA-PAED trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraoperative intravenous melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. METHODS: MELA-PAED is a randomized, double-blind, parallel two-arm, multi-center, superiority trial comparing intravenous melatonin with placebo. Four hundred participants aged 1-6 years will be randomized 1:1 to either the intervention or placebo. The intervention consists of intravenous melatonin 0.15 mg/kg administered approximately 30 min before the end of surgery. Participants will be monitored in the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU), and the Post Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire for Ambulatory Surgery (PHBQ-AS) will be performed on days 1, 7, and 14 after the intervention. Serious Adverse Events (SAE) will be assessed up to 30 days after the intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the incidence of emergence agitation, assessed dichotomously as any Watcha score >2 during the participant's stay in the post-anesthetic care unit. Secondary outcomes are opioid consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit and adverse events. Exploratory outcomes include SAEs, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and time to awakening, to first oral intake, and to discharge readiness. CONCLUSION: The MELA-PAED trial investigates the efficacy of intravenous intraoperative melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. Results may provide further knowledge concerning the use of melatonin in pediatric perioperative care.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression. RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Prolonged effects of dexamethasone following total knee arthroplasty: A pre-planned sub-study of the DEX-2-TKA trial.

OBJECTIVES: The DEX-2-TKA trial demonstrated that one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to investigate the prolonged effects of dexamethasone after the 48-h intervention period. DESIGN: This was a prospective, pre-planned questionnaire follow-up on postoperative days 3-7 of patients in the DEX-2-TKA trial that randomly received: DX1 (dexamethasone 24 mg + placebo), DX2 (dexamethasone 24 mg + dexamethasone 24 mg), and placebo (placebo + placebo) perioperatively and 24 h later. SETTING: A multicenter trial performed at five Danish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 434 of 485 adult participants enrolled in the DEX-2-TKA trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between groups in average of all numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores reported in the morning, at bedtime, and the daily average pain on postoperative days 3-7. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) pain intensity levels for postoperative days 3-7 were: DX2 3.2 (2.1-4.3); DX1 3.3 (2.3-4.1); and placebo 3.3 (2.5-4.7). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: 0 (95% confidence interval - 0.54 to 0.2), P = 0.38 between DX1 and placebo; 0.1 (-0.47 to 0.33), p = .87 between DX1 and DX2; and 0.1 (-0.6 to 0.13), p = .20 between DX2 and placebo. We found no relevant differences between groups on sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 nor for patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found that neither one nor two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone demonstrated prolonged effects on overall pain or sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 after total knee arthroplasty. We also found that dexamethasone had no effect on patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789 (main result trial).

Short-Term versus Long-Term Mentalization-Based Therapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial (MBT-RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and prevalent psychiatric disorder. Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) is an evidence-based intervention for BPD, and several countries offer treatment programs for BPD lasting for years, which is resource demanding. No previous trial has compared short-term with long-term MBT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term MBT for outpatients with BPD. METHODS: Adult outpatients (≥18 years) with subthreshold or diagnosed BPD were randomly assigned (1:1) to short-term MBT (5 months) or long-term MBT (14 months). The primary outcome was BPD symptoms assessed with the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder. Secondary outcomes were functional impairment, quality of life, global functioning, and severe self-harm. All outcomes were primarily assessed at 16 months after randomization. This trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03677037. RESULTS: Between October 4, 2018, and December 3, 2020, we randomly assigned 166 participants to short-term MBT (n = 84) or long-term MBT (n = 82). Regression analyses showed no evidence of a difference when assessing BPD symptoms (MD 0.99; 95% CI: -1.06 to 3.03; p = 0.341), level of functioning (MD 1.44; 95% CI: -1.43 to 4.32; p = 0.321), quality of life (MD -0.91; 95% CI: -4.62 to 2.79; p = 0.626), global functioning (MD -2.25; 95% CI: -6.70 to 2.20; p = 0.318), or severe self-harm (RR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.70-2.84; p = 0.335). More participants in the long-term MBT group had a serious adverse event compared with short-term MBT (RR 1.63; 95% CI: 0.94-3.07; p = 0.088), primarily driven by a difference in psychiatric hospitalizations (RR 2.03; 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: Long-term MBT did not lead to lower levels of BPD symptoms, nor did it influence any of the secondary outcomes compared with short-term MBT.

The difference between shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal psychotherapy duration for mental health disorders is unclear. Our aim was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders. METHOD: We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished randomised clinical trials assessing different durations of the same psychotherapy type before June 27, 2022. Our methodology was based on Cochrane and an eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were quality of life, serious adverse events, and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were suicide or suicide-attempts, self-harm, and level of functioning. RESULTS: We included 19 trials randomising 3,447 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Three single trials met the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 6 versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality when assessing quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning. One single trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions to 8 and 12 weeks of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 20 weeks versus 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- or anxiety disorders when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. It was only possible to conduct two pre-planned meta-analyses. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders on anxiety symptoms at end of treatment (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.63; p = 0.77; I2 = 73%; four trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.40; p = 0.20; I2 = 21%; two trials; very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for shorter versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders is currently unclear. We only identified 19 randomised clinical trials. More trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors assessing participants at different levels of psychopathological severity are urgently needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128535.

Minimal important difference in opioid consumption based on adverse event reduction-A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The patient-relevant minimal important difference for opioid consumption remains undetermined, despite its frequent use as primary outcome in trials on postoperative pain management. A minimal important difference is necessary to evaluate whether significant trial results are clinically relevant. Further, it can be used as effect size to ensure that trials are powered to find clinically relevant effects. By exploring the dose-response relationship between postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects, we aim to approximate the minimal important difference in opioid consumption anchored to opioid-related adverse effects. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of aggregated data from two clinical trials (PANSAID NCT02571361 and DEX2TKA NCT03506789) and one observational cohort study (Pain Map NCT02340052) on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome is the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption between patients with no opioid-related adverse effects and patients experiencing the mildest degree of one or more opioid-related adverse effects (i.e., mild nausea, sedation and/or dizziness or vomiting). Secondary outcomes include the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption that corresponds to one point on a cumulated opioid-related adverse event 0-10 scale. Further, we will explore the proportion of patients that experience opioid-related adverse effects for consecutive opioid dose intervals of 2 mg iv morphine equivalents. Quantile regression will be used to assess any significant interactions with patient baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study will hopefully bring us one step closer to determining relevant opioid reductions and thereby improve our understanding of intervention effects and planning of future trials.

Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA): A consortium initiative for perioperative research.

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-saving.

Effects of adding exercise to usual care in patients with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding exercise to usual care for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and BIOSIS searched from inception to July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included all randomised clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care in participants with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease irrespective of setting, publication status, year and language. OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Five independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias in pairs. Our methodology was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Cochrane Risk of Bias-version 1. RESULTS: We included 950 trials, of which 248 trials randomising 21 633 participants reported on our predefined outcomes. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The major types of exercise reported were dynamic aerobic exercise (126/248 trials), dynamic resistance exercise (25/248 trials), and combined aerobic and resistance exercise (58/248 trials). The study participants were included due to cardiovascular diseases (189/248 trials), type 2 diabetes (41/248 trials) or hypertension (16/248 trials). The median intervention period was 3 months (IQR: 2-4 months) and the median follow-up period was 6 months (IQR: 3-8 months) after randomisation. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding exercise to usual care when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93; I2=0%, moderate certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88; I2=0%, moderate certainty of evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference between trials from different economic regions, type of participants, type of exercise or duration of follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using several different tools, but the results generally showed that exercise improved quality of life, but the effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important difference. CONCLUSIONS: A short duration of any type of exercise seems to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in patients with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular diseases. Exercise seems to have statistically significant effects on quality of life, but the effect sizes seem minimal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019142313.

Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring (NIRS) in children and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral oxygenation monitoring utilising near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is increasingly used to guide interventions in clinical care. The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis is to evaluate the effects of clinical care with access to cerebral NIRS monitoring in children and adults versus care without. METHODS: This review conforms to PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020202986). Methods are outlined in our protocol (doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01660-2). RESULTS: Twenty-five randomised clinical trials were included (2606 participants). All trials were at a high risk of bias. Two trials assessed the effects of NIRS during neonatal intensive care, 13 during cardiac surgery, 9 during non-cardiac surgery and 1 during neurocritical care. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference for all-cause mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10; 1489 participants; I2 = 0; 11 trials; very low certainty of evidence); moderate or severe, persistent cognitive or neurological deficit (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.32; 1135 participants; I2 = 39.6; 9 trials; very low certainty of evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.67-1.01; 2132 participants; I2 = 68.4; 17 trials; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: The evidence on the effects of clinical care with access to cerebral NIRS monitoring is very uncertain. IMPACT: The evidence of the effects of cerebral NIRS versus no NIRS monitoring are very uncertain for mortality, neuroprotection, and serious adverse events. Additional trials to obtain sufficient information size, focusing on lowering bias risk, are required. The first attempt to systematically review randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of cerebral NIRS monitoring by pooling data across various clinical settings. Despite pooling data across clinical settings, study interpretation was not substantially impacted by heterogeneity. We have insufficient evidence to support or reject the clinical use of cerebral NIRS monitoring.

Oxygen targets and 6-month outcome after out of hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned sub-analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal oxygen targets in patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest are uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to describe the values of partial pressure of oxygen values (PaO2) and the episodes of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia occurring within the first 72 h of mechanical ventilation in out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. The secondary aim was to evaluate the association of PaO2 with patients' outcome. METHODS: Preplanned secondary analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after OHCA (TTM2) trial. Arterial blood gases values were collected from randomization every 4 h for the first 32 h, and then, every 8 h until day 3. Hypoxemia was defined as PaO2 < 60 mmHg and severe hyperoxemia as PaO2 > 300 mmHg. Mortality and poor neurological outcome (defined according to modified Rankin scale) were collected at 6 months. RESULTS: 1418 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 64 ± 14 years, and 292 patients (20.6%) were female. 24.9% of patients had at least one episode of hypoxemia, and 7.6% of patients had at least one episode of severe hyperoxemia. Both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia were independently associated with 6-month mortality, but not with poor neurological outcome. The best cutoff point associated with 6-month mortality for hypoxemia was 69 mmHg (Risk Ratio, RR = 1.009, 95% CI 0.93-1.09), and for hyperoxemia was 195 mmHg (RR = 1.006, 95% CI 0.95-1.06). The time exposure, i.e., the area under the curve (PaO2-AUC), for hyperoxemia was significantly associated with mortality (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In OHCA patients, both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia are associated with 6-months mortality, with an effect mediated by the timing exposure to high values of oxygen. Precise titration of oxygen levels should be considered in this group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02908308 , Registered September 20, 2016.

Speed of cooling after cardiac arrest in relation to the intervention effect: a sub-study from the TTM2-trial.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management (TTM) is recommended following cardiac arrest; however, time to target temperature varies in clinical practice. We hypothesised the effects of a target temperature of 33 °C when compared to normothermia would differ based on average time to hypothermia and those patients achieving hypothermia fastest would have more favorable outcomes. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of the TTM-2 trial, patients after out of hospital cardiac arrest were randomized to targeted hypothermia (33 °C), followed by controlled re-warming, or normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, ≥ 37.8 °C). The average temperature at 4 h (240 min) after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was calculated for participating sites. Primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcome was poor functional outcome at 6 months (score of 4-6 on modified Rankin scale). RESULTS: A total of 1592 participants were evaluated for the primary outcome. We found no evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effect based on the average time to target temperature on mortality (p = 0.17). Of patients allocated to hypothermia at the fastest sites, 71 of 145 (49%) had died compared to 68 of 148 (46%) of the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.36). Poor functional outcome was reported in 74/144 (51%) patients in the hypothermia group, and 75/147 (51%) patients in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia 1.01 (95% CI 0.80-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Using a hospital's average time to hypothermia did not significantly alter the effect of TTM of 33 °C compared to normothermia and early treatment of fever.

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial).

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. DISCUSSION: In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018.

Vasodilators for acute heart failure-A protocol for a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Above one million annual hospitalizations occur with a primary diagnosis of acute heart failure in the US, with comparable numbers in Europe. Within 1 year, over a third of patients have died or been re-hospitalized. Most patients have acutely elevated systemic and/or intra-cardiac blood pressures as part of the acute heart failure syndrome. Most clinical trials of acute heart failure have aimed at reducing preload and/or afterload through drug-induced vasodilation. However, recent European guidelines downgraded the treatment recommendation of vasodilators. We aim to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vasodilators in the treatment of acute heart failure. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review was undertaken using the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We plan to include all randomized clinical trials assessing the use of vasodilators in the treatment of AHF. The systematic review will be conducted based on a systematic search of relevant major medical databases without date restrictions, including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in addition to clinical trial registries. We will begin the searches in August 2022. All included trials will be assessed and classified at low risk of bias or at high risk of bias. Our conclusions will be based on the results from the primary outcomes with concomitant low risk of bias. Extracted data will be analyzed using Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10, Review Manager 5.3, and SAS. We will assess the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We will register this systematic review at Prospero and aim to update it when new trials are published. DISCUSSION: This protocol defines the detailed methodology and approach used for a systematic review on whether vasodilation for acute heart failure improves patient outcome. This systematic review will potentially aid clinicians in deciding the optimal treatment of patients admitted with acute heart failure. Furthermore, this review will explore gaps in our knowledge and thus guide future research within acute heart failure.

Risk of serious adverse events associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in orthopaedic surgery. A protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common condition following orthopaedic surgeries and causes prolonged hospitalisation, delayed rehabilitation and hamper the quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics and anti-inflammatory mediators in the treatment of postoperative pain. The association of NSAIDs with serious adverse events may however keep some clinicians and clinical decision makers from using NSAIDs perioperatively. The evidence regarding the risks of serious adverse events following perioperative use of NSAIDs in orthopaedic surgery is sparse and needs to be assessed in a systematic review. This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to identify the risks of serious adverse events from perioperative use of NSAIDs in orthopaedic patients. METHODS: Our methodology is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We wish to assess if NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention, will influence the risks of serious adverse events in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. We will include all randomised trials assessing the use of NSAIDs perioperatively. To identify trials we will search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cochrane Central Register, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and BIOSIS. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data. We will use the 'Risk of Bias 2 tool' to assess trials. Extracted data will be analysed using RStudio and Trial Sequential Analysis. We will create a 'Summary of Findings' table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcomes. We will assess the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: This systematic review can potentially aid clinicians and clinical decision makers in the use of NSAIDs for treatment of postoperative pain following orthopaedic surgeries.

Effect of dexamethasone on intraoperative remifentanil dose in total knee arthroplasty surgery under general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The effects of glucocorticoids may include both genomic and rapid nongenomic effects. The potential rapid analgesic effect during surgery has not previously been investigated. We aimed to explore the effect of dexamethasone on intraoperative infusion rate of remifentanil in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery under general anaesthesia. METHODS: In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we included patients randomised in the DEX-2-TKA trial, who were operated under total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol. Trial medication, intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg or placebo, was administered immediately after anaesthesia onset. The primary outcome was the median weight-corrected infusion rate of remifentanil during surgery. Secondary outcomes included median weight-corrected infusion rate of propofol, median intraoperative bispectral index and time spent in the post-anaesthesia care unit. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. A significantly higher remifentanil infusion rate was observed in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group, p = .02. None of the secondary outcomes resulted in statistically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: This explorative post hoc analysis of the randomised DEX-2-TKA trail showed that patients undergoing TKA surgery under general anaesthesia and who received dexamethasone seemed to have a higher remifentanil infusion rate compared with patients who received placebo. The clinical implications of the potentially increased remifentanil infusion rate need to be validated and explored further. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05002361 (12 August 2021).

Tranexamic Acid for Prevention of Hematoma Expansion in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients With or Without Spot Sign.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The computed tomography angiography or contrast-enhanced computed tomography based spot sign has been proposed as a biomarker for identifying on-going hematoma expansion in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. We investigated, if spot-sign positive participants benefit more from tranexamic acid versus placebo as compared to spot-sign negative participants. METHODS: TICH-2 trial (Tranexamic Acid for Hyperacute Primary Intracerebral Haemorrhage) was a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruiting acutely hospitalized participants with intracerebral hemorrhage within 8 hours after symptom onset. Local investigators randomized participants to 2 grams of intravenous tranexamic acid or matching placebo (1:1). All participants underwent computed tomography scan on admission and on day 2 (24±12 hours) after randomization. In this sub group analysis, we included all participants from the main trial population with imaging allowing adjudication of spot sign status. RESULTS: Of the 2325 TICH-2 participants, 254 (10.9%) had imaging allowing for spot-sign adjudication. Of these participants, 64 (25.2%) were spot-sign positive. Median (interquartile range) time from symptom onset to administration of the intervention was 225.0 (169.0 to 310.0) minutes. The adjusted percent difference in absolute day-2 hematoma volume between participants allocated to tranexamic versus placebo was 3.7% (95% CI, -12.8% to 23.4%) for spot-sign positive and 1.7% (95% CI, -8.4% to 12.8%) for spot-sign negative participants (Pheterogenity=0.85). No difference was observed in significant hematoma progression (dichotomous composite outcome) between participants allocated to tranexamic versus placebo among spot-sign positive (odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.46]) and negative (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.41 to 1.45]) participants (Pheterogenity=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Data from the TICH-2 trial do not support that admission spot sign status modifies the treatment effect of tranexamic acid versus placebo in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. The results might have been affected by low statistical power as well as treatment delay. Registration: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN93732214.

Central data monitoring in the multicentre randomised SafeBoosC-III trial - a pragmatic approach.

BACKGROUND: Data monitoring of clinical trials is a tool aimed at reducing the risks of random errors (e.g. clerical errors) and systematic errors, which include misinterpretation, misunderstandings, and fabrication. Traditional 'good clinical practice data monitoring' with on-site monitors increases trial costs and is time consuming for the local investigators. This paper aims to outline our approach of time-effective central data monitoring for the SafeBoosC-III multicentre randomised clinical trial and present the results from the first three central data monitoring meetings. METHODS: The present approach to central data monitoring was implemented for the SafeBoosC-III trial, a large, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised clinical trial evaluating the benefits and harms of treatment based on cerebral oxygenation monitoring in preterm infants during the first days of life versus monitoring and treatment as usual. We aimed to optimise completeness and quality and to minimise deviations, thereby limiting random and systematic errors. We designed an automated report which was blinded to group allocation, to ease the work of data monitoring. The central data monitoring group first reviewed the data using summary plots only, and thereafter included the results of the multivariate Mahalanobis distance of each centre from the common mean. The decisions of the group were manually added to the reports for dissemination, information, correcting errors, preventing furture errors and documentation. RESULTS: The first three central monitoring meetings identified 156 entries of interest, decided upon contacting the local investigators for 146 of these, which resulted in correction of 53 entries. Multiple systematic errors and protocol violations were identified, one of these included 103/818 randomised participants. Accordingly, the electronic participant record form (ePRF) was improved to reduce ambiguity. DISCUSSION: We present a methodology for central data monitoring to optimise quality control and quality development. The initial results included identification of random errors in data entries leading to correction of the ePRF, systematic protocol violations, and potential protocol adherence issues. Central data monitoring may optimise concurrent data completeness and may help timely detection of data deviations due to misunderstandings or fabricated data.

A screening method to spot biomarkers that may warn of serious events in a chronic disease - illustrated by cardiological CLARICOR trial data.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a crude screening method for detecting biomarkers which frequently exhibit a rise (or fall) in level prior to a serious event (e.g. a stroke) in patients with a chronic disease, signalling that the biomarker may have an alarm-raising or prognostic potential. The subsequent assessment of the marker's clinical utility requires costly, difficult longitudinal studies. Therefore, initial screening of candidate-biomarkers is desirable. METHODS: The method exploits a cohort of patients with biomarkers measured at entry and with recording of first serious event during follow-up. Copying those individual records onto a common timeline where a specific event occurs on the same day (Day 0) for all patients, the baseline biomarker level, when plotted against the patient's entry time on the revised timeline, will have a positive (negative) regression slope if biomarker levels generally rise (decline) the closer one gets to the event. As an example, we study 1,958 placebo-treated patients with stable coronary artery disease followed for nine years in the CLARICOR trial (NCT00121550), examining 11 newer biomarkers. RESULTS: Rising average serum levels of cardiac troponin T and of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were seen prior to a fatal cardiovascular outcome. C-reactive protein rose prior to non-cardiovascular death. Glomerular filtration rate, seven lipoproteins, and nine newer cardiological biomarkers did not show convincing changes. CONCLUSIONS: For early detection of biomarkers with an alarm-raising potential in chronic diseases, we proposed the described easy procedure. Using only baseline biomarker values and clinical course of participants with coronary heart disease, we identified the same cardiovascular biomarkers as those previously found containing prognostic information using longitudinal or survival analysis.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.