Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a conservative approach to oxygen therapy for invasively ventilated adults in intensive care: Protocol for the UK-ROX trial.

Background: In the United Kingdom, around 184,000 adults are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) each year with over 30% receiving mechanical ventilation. Oxygen is the commonest therapeutic intervention provided to these patients but it is unclear how much oxygen should be administered for the best clinical outcomes. Methods: The UK-ROX trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of conservative oxygen therapy (the minimum oxygen concentration required to maintain an oxygen saturation of 90% ± 2%) versus usual oxygen therapy in critically ill adults receiving supplemental oxygen when invasively mechanically ventilated in ICUs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The trial will recruit 16,500 patients from approximately 100 UK adult ICUs. Using a deferred consent model, enrolled participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to conservative or usual oxygen therapy until ICU discharge or 90 days after randomisation. Objectives: The primary clinical outcome is all cause mortality at 90 days following randomisation. Discussion: The UK-ROX trial has received ethical approval from the South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/SC/0423) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Reference: 22/CAG/0154). The trial commenced in May 2021 and, at the time of publication, 95 sites had opened to recruitment.

Use of selective gut decontamination in critically ill children: PICnIC a pilot RCT and mixed-methods study.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children. In adults, data suggest the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract may reduce the incidence of healthcare-associated infections. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract has not been evaluated in the paediatric intensive care unit population. Objectives: To determine the feasibility of conducting a multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial in critically ill children comparing selective decontamination of the digestive tract with standard infection control. Design: Parallel-group pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial with an integrated mixed-methods study. Setting: Six paediatric intensive care units in England. Participants: Children (> 37 weeks corrected gestational age, up to 16 years) requiring mechanical ventilation expected to last for at least 48 hours were eligible for the PICnIC pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial. During the ecology periods, all children admitted to the paediatric intensive care units were eligible. Parents/legal guardians of recruited patients and healthcare professionals working in paediatric intensive care units were eligible for inclusion in the mixed-methods study. Interventions: The interventions in the PICnIC pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial included administration of selective decontamination of the digestive tract as oro-pharyngeal paste and as a suspension given by enteric tube during the period of mechanical ventilation. Main outcome measures: The decision as to whether a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial is feasible is based on multiple outcomes, including (but not limited to): (1) willingness and ability to recruit eligible patients; (2) adherence to the selective decontamination of the digestive tract intervention; (3) acceptability of the definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial; (4) estimation of recruitment rate; and (5) understanding of potential clinical and ecological outcome measures. Results: A total of 368 children (85% of all those who were eligible) were enrolled in the PICnIC pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial across six paediatric intensive care units: 207 in the baseline phase (Period One) and 161 in the intervention period (Period Two). In sites delivering selective decontamination of the digestive tract, the majority (98%) of children received at least one dose of selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and of these, 68% commenced within the first 6 hours. Consent for the collection of additional swabs was low (44%), though data completeness for potential outcomes, including microbiology data from routine clinical swab testing, was excellent. Recruited children were representative of the wider paediatric intensive care unit population. Overall, 3.6 children/site/week were recruited compared with the potential recruitment rate for a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial of 3 children/site/week, based on data from all UK paediatric intensive care units. The proposed trial, including consent and selective decontamination of the digestive tract, was acceptable to parents and staff with adaptations, including training to improve consent and communication, and adaptations to the administration protocol for the paste and ecology monitoring. Clinical outcomes that were considered important included duration of organ failure and hospital stay, healthcare-acquired infections and survival. Limitations: The delivery of the pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to slow set-up of sites, and a lack of face-to face training. Conclusions: PICnIC's findings indicate that a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial in selective decontamination of the digestive tract in paediatric intensive care units is feasible with the inclusion modifications, which would need to be included in a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial to ensure that the efficiency of trial processes is maximised. Future work: A definitive trial that incorporates the protocol adaptations and outcomes arising from this study is feasible and should be conducted. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN40310490. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/152/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Each year, around 20,000 critically ill children are admitted to paediatric intensive care units in the UK. These children are at a higher risk of healthcare-associated infections, one of the main sources of which is the large number of bacteria in the digestive tract. Spread of bacteria from the digestive tract into other organs, such as the lung (causing ventilator-associated pneumonia) or bloodstream (causing sepsis), can be life-threatening. The risk is highest in those children whose illness is so severe that they require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Stopping the growth of bacteria in the digestive tract (called selective decontamination of the digestive tract) has been shown in adults to reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections. However, there have been no trials in children. We wanted to assess how practical and acceptable such a trial would be comparing standard infection control to selective decontamination of the digestive tract-enhanced infection control and monitoring how each intervention affected antimicrobial resistance. We undertook a pilot study to examine whether clinicians could identify eligible children, enrol them in the study and follow study procedures during the course of paediatric intensive care unit admission. Alongside this, we interviewed parents and clinicians to get their views on the proposed trial. Six hospitals recruited 559 patients over a period of roughly 7 months. Hospitals were randomly allocated to continue with the standard infection control procedure or to give selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Overall, recruitment was higher than expected. Alongside this, we examined the views of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals to assess their views on whether a trial should be carried out to see if selective decontamination of the digestive tract should become part of the infection control regime for children most at risk of hospital-acquired infection in the paediatric intensive care unit. Overall results suggest that a larger PICnIC trial incorporating patient stakeholder and clinical staff feedback on design and outcomes is feasible and that it is appropriate to conduct a trial into the effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract administration to minimise hospital-acquired infections.

Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets in critically ill children (Oxy-PICU): a UK multicentre, open, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal target for systemic oxygenation in critically ill children is unknown. Liberal oxygenation is widely practiced, but has been associated with harm in paediatric patients. We aimed to evaluate whether conservative oxygenation would reduce duration of organ support or incidence of death compared to standard care. METHODS: Oxy-PICU was a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 15 UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Children admitted as an emergency, who were older than 38 weeks corrected gestational age and younger than 16 years receiving invasive ventilation and supplemental oxygen were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio via a concealed, central, web-based randomisation system to conservative peripheral oxygen saturations ([SpO2] 88-92%) or liberal (SpO2 >94%) targets. The primary outcome was the duration of organ support at 30 days following random allocation, a rank-based endpoint with death either on or before day 30 as the worst outcome (a score equating to 31 days of organ support), with survivors assigned a score between 1 and 30 depending on the number of calendar days of organ support received. The primary effect estimate was the probabilistic index, a value greater than 0·5 indicating more than 50% probability that conservative oxygenation is superior to liberal oxygenation for a randomly selected patient. All participants in whom consent was available were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The completed study was registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN92103439). FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2020, and May 15, 2022, 2040 children were randomly allocated to conservative or liberal oxygenation groups. Consent was available for 1872 (92%) of 2040 children. The conservative oxygenation group comprised 939 children (528 [57%] of 927 were female and 399 [43%] of 927 were male) and the liberal oxygenation group included 933 children (511 [56%] of 920 were female and 409 [45%] of 920 were male). Duration of organ support or death in the first 30 days was significantly lower in the conservative oxygenation group (probabilistic index 0·53, 95% CI 0·50-0·55; p=0·04 Wilcoxon rank-sum test, adjusted odds ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·99]). Prespecified adverse events were reported in 24 (3%) of 939 patients in the conservative oxygenation group and 36 (4%) of 933 patients in the liberal oxygenation group. INTERPRETATION: Among invasively ventilated children who were admitted as an emergency to a PICU receiving supplemental oxygen, a conservative oxygenation target resulted in a small, but significant, greater probability of a better outcome in terms of duration of organ support at 30 days or death when compared with a liberal oxygenation target. Widespread adoption of a conservative oxygenation saturation target (SpO2 88-92%) could help improve outcomes and reduce costs for the sickest children admitted to PICUs. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The effect of conservative oxygen therapy on mortality in adult critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background: Oxygen is the commonest intervention provided to critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Despite this, it is unclear how much oxygen should be administered to patients in order to promote the best clinical outcomes and it has been suggested that a strategy of conservative oxygen therapy (COT) may be advantageous. We therefore sought to answer the question of whether COT versus usual or liberal oxygen therapy was beneficial to adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation on an intensive care unit (ICU) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials comparing COT to liberal or usual oxygen therapy strategies in acutely ill adults (aged ⩾18 years) admitted to an ICU, and reported an outcome of interest. Studies were excluded if they were limited to a specific single disease diagnosis. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022308436). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. Effect estimates were pooled using a random effects model with the between study variance estimated using restricted maximum likelihood and standard errors calculated using the method of Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman. Between study heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. The certainty in the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Results: Nine eligible studies with 5727 participants fulfilled all eligibility criteria. Trials varied in their definitions of COT and liberal or usual oxygen therapy. The pooled estimate of risk ratio for 90 day mortality for COT versus comparator was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.88-1.12, 95% prediction interval 0.82-1.21). There was low heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 22.4%). The finding that mortality was similar for patients managed with COT or usual/liberal oxygen therapy was graded as moderate certainty. Conclusions: In critically ill adults admitted to an ICU, COT is neither beneficial nor harmful when compared to usual or liberal oxygen therapy. Trials to date have been inconsistent in defining both COT and liberal or usual oxygen therapy, which may have had an impact on the results of this meta-analysis. Future research should focus on unifying definitions and outcome measures.

biomArker-guided Duration of Antibiotic treatment in hospitalised Patients with suspecTed Sepsis (ADAPT-Sepsis): A protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Aim: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis. Design: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial. Setting: UK NHS hospitals. Target population: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis. Health technology: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed. Conclusion: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice.

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 Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Randomization to a Liberal Versus Conservative Oxygenation Target: Redox Responses in Critically Ill Children.

RATIONALE: Optimal systemic oxygenation targets in pediatric critical illness are unknown. A U-shaped relationship exists between blood oxygen levels and PICU mortality. Redox stress or iatrogenic injury from intensive treatments are potential mechanisms of harm from hyperoxia. OBJECTIVES: To measure biomarkers of oxidative status in children admitted to PICU and randomized to conservative (oxygen-hemoglobin saturation [Sp o2 ] 88-92%) versus liberal (Sp o2 > 94%) peripheral oxygenation targets. DESIGN: Mechanistic substudy nested within the Oxygen in PICU (Oxy-PICU) pilot randomized feasibility clinical trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03040570). SETTING: Three U.K. mixed medical and surgical PICUs in university hospitals. PATIENTS: Seventy-five eligible patients randomized to the Oxy-PICU randomized feasibility clinical trial. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization to a conservative (Sp o2 88-92%) versus liberal (Sp o2 > 94%) peripheral oxygenation target. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood and urine samples were collected at two timepoints: less than 24 hours and up to 72 hours from randomization in trial participants (March 2017 to July 2017). Plasma was analyzed for markers of ischemic/oxidative response, namely thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS; lipid peroxidation marker) and ischemia-modified albumin (protein oxidation marker). Total urinary nitrate/nitrite was measured as a marker of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (RONS). Blood hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1a messenger RNA (mRNA) expression (hypoxia response gene) was measured by reverse transcription- polymerase chain reaction. Total urinary nitrate/nitrite levels were greater in the liberal compared with conservative oxygenation group at 72 hours (median difference 32.6 µmol/mmol of creatinine [95% CI 13.7-93.6]; p < 0.002, Mann-Whitney test). HIF-1a mRNA expression was increased in the conservative group compared with liberal in less than 24-hour samples (6.0-fold [95% CI 1.3-24.0]; p = 0.032). There were no significant differences in TBARS or ischemia-modified albumin. CONCLUSIONS: On comparing liberal with conservative oxygenation targets, we show, first, significant redox response (increase in urinary markers of RONS), but no changes in markers of lipid or protein oxidation. We also show what appears to be an early hypoxic response (increase in HIF-1a gene expression) in subjects exposed to conservative rather than liberal oxygenation targets.

Lower Versus Higher Exposure to Vasopressor Therapy in Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Balancing the risks of hypotension and vasopressor-associated adverse effects is a daily challenge in ICUs. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the effect of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy on mortality among adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published from inception to October 15, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy in adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension without language or publication status limits. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with seven prespecified subgroups. Secondary outcomes included shorter- and longer-term mortality, use of life-sustaining therapies, vasopressor-related complications, neurologic outcome, and quality of life at longest reported follow-up. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate summary effect measures across individual studies (risk ratio [RR] for dichotomous variables, mean difference for continuous variables, both with 95% CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We registered this review on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021224434). DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 3,403 records retrieved, 68 full-text articles were reviewed and three eligible studies included. Lower exposure to vasopressors probably lowers 90-day mortality but this is based on moderate-certainty evidence, lowered for imprecision (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02). There was no credible subgroup effect. Lower vasopressor exposure may also decrease the risk of supraventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with vasodilatory hypotension who are started on vasopressors, moderate-certainty evidence from three randomized trials showed that lower vasopressor exposure probably lowers mortality. However, additional trial data are needed to reach an optimal information size to detect a clinically important 10% relative reduction in mortality with this approach.

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Regional citrate anticoagulation versus systemic heparin anticoagulation for continuous kidney replacement therapy in intensive care.

PURPOSE: Many intensive care units (ICUs) have transitioned from systemic heparin anticoagulation (SHA) to regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) for continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT). We evaluated the clinical and health economic impacts of ICU transition to RCA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed all adult general ICUs in England and Wales to identify transition dates and conducted a micro-costing study in eight ICUs. We then conducted an interrupted time-series analysis of linked, routinely collected health records. RESULTS: In 69,001 patients who received CKRT (8585 RCA, 60,416 SHA) in 181 ICUs between 2009 and 2017, transition to RCA was not associated with a change in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.08) but was associated with step-increases in duration of kidney support (0.53 days, 95% CI 0.28-0.79), advanced cardiovascular support (0.23 days, 95% CI 0.09-0.38) and ICU length of stay (0.86 days, 95% CI 0.24-1.49). The estimated one-year incremental net monetary benefit per patient was £ - 2376 (95% CI £ - 3841-£ - 911), with an estimated likelihood of cost-effectiveness of <0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Transition to RCA was associated with significant increases in healthcare resource use, without corresponding clinical benefit, and is highly unlikely to be cost-effective over a one-year time horizon.

Renal replacement anticoagulant management: Protocol and analysis plan for an observational comparative effectiveness study of linked data sources.

Acute kidney injury is common in critical illness. In patients with severe acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy is needed to prevent harm from metabolic and electrolyte disturbances and fluid overload. In the UK, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the preferred modality, which requires anticoagulation. Over the last decade, conventional systemic heparin anticoagulation has started being replaced by regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT, which is now used in approximately 50% of ICUs. This shift towards regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT is occurring with little evidence of safety or longer term effectiveness. Renal replacement anticoagulant management (RRAM) is an observational comparative effectiveness study, utilising existing data sources to address the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the change to regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT in UK ICUs. The study will use data from approximately 85,000 patients who were treated in adult, general ICUs participating in the case mix programme national clinical audit between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2017. A survey of health service providers' anticoagulation practices will be combined with treatment and hospital outcome data from the case mix programme and linked with long-term outcomes from the Civil Registrations (deaths), Hospital Episodes Statistics for England, Patient Episodes Data for Wales, and the UK Renal Registry datasets. The primary clinical effectiveness outcome is all-cause mortality at 90-days. The study will incorporate an economic evaluation with micro-costing of both regional citrate anticoagulation and systemic heparin anticoagulation. Study registration: NCT03545750.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Protocol for a Randomized Multiple Center Trial of Conservative Versus Liberal Oxygenation Targets in Critically Ill Children (Oxy-PICU): Oxygen in Pediatric Intensive Care.

OBJECTIVES: Oxygen administration is a fundamental part of pediatric critical care, with supplemental oxygen offered to nearly every acutely unwell child. However, optimal targets for systemic oxygenation are unknown. Oxy-PICU aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a conservative peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp o2 ) target of 88-92% compared with a liberal target of more than 94%. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open, multiple-center, parallel group randomized control trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Fifteen PICUs across England, Wales, and Scotland. PATIENTS: Infants and children age more than 38 week-corrected gestational age to 16 years who are accepted to a participating PICU as an unplanned admission and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with supplemental oxygen for abnormal gas exchange. INTERVENTION: Adjustment of ventilation and inspired oxygen settings to achieve an Sp o2 target of 88-92% during invasive mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Randomization is 1:1 to a liberal Sp o2 target of more than 94% or a conservative Sp o2 target of 88-92% (inclusive), using minimization with a random component. Minimization will be performed on: age, site, primary reason for admission, and severity of abnormality of gas exchange. Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, approaching patients for written informed consent will be deferred to after randomization. The primary clinical outcome is a composite of death and days of organ support at 30 days. Baseline demographics and clinical status will be recorded as well as daily measures of oxygenation and organ support, and discharge outcomes. This trial received Health Research Authority approval on December 23, 2019 (reference: 272768), including a favorable ethical opinion from the East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 19/EE/0362). Trial findings will be disseminated in national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Following Extubation on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation of critically ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours. Results: Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Highly Sensitive Lineage Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 Variants through Allele-Specific Probe PCR.

Tools to detect SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and track the ongoing evolution of the virus are necessary to support public health efforts and the design and evaluation of novel COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been adopted as the gold standard method for discriminating SARS-CoV-2 lineages, alternative methods may be required when processing samples with low viral loads or low RNA quality. To this aim, an allele-specific probe PCR (ASP-PCR) targeting lineage-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was developed and used to screen 1,082 samples from two clinical trials in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Probit regression models were developed to compare ASP-PCR performance against 1,771 NGS results for the same cohorts. Individual SNPs were shown to readily identify specific variants of concern. ASP-PCR was shown to discriminate SARS-CoV-2 lineages with a higher likelihood than NGS over a wide range of viral loads. The comparative advantage for ASP-PCR over NGS was most pronounced in samples with cycle threshold (CT) values between 26 and 30 and in samples that showed evidence of degradation. Results for samples screened by ASP-PCR and NGS showed 99% concordant results. ASP-PCR is well suited to augment but not replace NGS. The method can differentiate SARS-CoV-2 lineages with high accuracy and would be best deployed to screen samples with lower viral loads or that may suffer from degradation. Future work should investigate further destabilization from primer-target base mismatch through altered oligonucleotide chemistry or chemical additives.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Use of selective gut decontamination in critically ill children: protocol for the Paediatric Intensive Care and Infection Control (PICnIC) pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children. In critically ill adults, there are data that suggest the use of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive tract (SDD), alongside standard infection control measures reduce mortality and the incidence of HCAIs. SDD-enhanced infection control has not been compared directly with standard infection prevention strategies in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) population. The aim of this pilot study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in critically ill children comparing SDD with standard infection control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Paediatric Intensive Care and Infection Control is a parallel group pilot cRCT, with integrated mixed-methods study, comparing incorporation of SDD into infection control procedures to standard care. After a 1-week pretrial ecology surveillance period, recruitment to the cRCT will run for a period of 18 weeks, comprising: (1) baseline control period (2) pre, mid and post-trial ecology surveillance periods and (3) intervention period. Six PICUs (in England, UK) will begin with usual care in period 1, then will be randomised 1:1 by the trial statistician using computer-based randomisation, to either continue to deliver usual care or commence delivery of the intervention (SDD) in period 2. Outcomes measures include parent and healthcare professionals' views on trial feasibility, adherence to the SDD intervention, estimation of recruitment rate and understanding of potential patient-centred primary and secondary outcome measures for the definitive trial. The planned recruitment for the cRCT is 324 participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received favourable ethical opinion from West Midlands-Black Country Research Ethics Committee (reference: 20/WM/0061) and approval from the Health Research Authority (IRAS number: 239324). Informed consent is not required for SDD intervention or anonymised data collection but is sought for investigations as part of the study, any identifiable data collected and monitoring of medical records. Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN40310490.