Boosting the accuracy of existing models by updating and extending: using a multicenter COVID-19 ICU cohort as a proxy.

Most published prediction models for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) were poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and heterogeneous in model performance. To tackle methodological challenges faced in previous prediction studies, we investigated whether model updating and extending improves mortality prediction, using the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as a proxy. All COVID-19 patients admitted to seven ICUs in the Euregio-Meuse Rhine during the first pandemic wave were included. The 4C Mortality and SEIMC scores were selected as promising prognostic models from an external validation study. Five predictors could be estimated based on cohort size. TRIPOD guidelines were followed and logistic regression analyses with the linear predictor, APACHE II score, and country were performed. Bootstrapping with backward selection was applied to select variables for the final model. Additionally, shrinkage was performed. Model discrimination was displayed as optimism-corrected areas under the ROC curve and calibration by calibration slopes and plots. The mortality rate of the 551 included patients was 36%. Discrimination of the 4C Mortality and SEIMC scores increased from 0.70 to 0.74 and 0.70 to 0.73 and calibration plots improved compared to the original models after updating and extending. Mortality prediction can be improved after updating and extending of promising models.

Effect of high versus standard protein provision on functional recovery in people with critical illness (PRECISe): an investigator-initiated, double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in Belgium and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Increased protein provision might ameliorate muscle wasting and improve long-term outcomes in critically ill patients. The aim of the PRECISe trial was to assess whether higher enteral protein provision (ie, 2·0 g/kg per day) would improve health-related quality of life and functional outcomes in critically ill patients who were mechanically ventilated compared with standard enteral protein provision (ie, 1·3 g/kg per day). METHODS: The PRECISe trial was an investigator-initiated, double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in five Dutch hospitals and five Belgian hospitals. Inclusion criteria were initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and an expected duration of invasive ventilation of 3 days or longer. Exclusion criteria were contraindications for enteral nutrition, moribund condition, BMI less than 18 kg/m2, kidney failure with a no dialysis code, or hepatic encephalopathy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four randomisation labels, corresponding with two study groups (ie, standard or high protein; two labels per group) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio through an interactive web-response system. Randomisation was done via random permuted-block randomisation in varying block sizes of eight and 12, stratified by centre. Participants, care providers, investigators, outcome assessors, data analysts, and the independent data safety monitoring board were all blinded to group allocation. Patients received isocaloric enteral feeds that contained 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·06 g of protein/mL (ie, standard protein) or 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·10 g of protein/mL (ie, high protein). The study-nutrition intervention was limited to the time period during the patient's ICU stay in which they required enteral feeding, with a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) health utility score at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days after randomisation, adjusted for baseline EQ-5D-5L health utility score. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04633421) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Nov 19, 2020, and April 14, 2023, 935 patients were randomly assigned. 335 (35·8%) of 935 patients were female and 600 (64·2%) were male. 465 (49·7%) of 935 were assigned to the standard protein group and 470 (50·3%) were assigned to the high protein group. 430 (92·5%) of 465 patients in the standard protein group and 419 (89·1%) of 470 patients in the high protein group were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary outcome, EQ-5D-5L health utility score during 180 days after randomisation (assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days), was lower in patients allocated to the high protein group than in those allocated to the standard protein group, with a mean difference of -0·05 (95% CI -0·10 to -0·01; p=0·031). Regarding safety outcomes, the probability of mortality during the entire follow-up was 0·38 (SE 0·02) in the standard protein group and 0·42 (0·02) in the high protein group (hazard ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·92 to 1·40; p=0·22). There was a higher incidence of symptoms of gastrointestinal intolerance in patients in the high protein group (odds ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·06 to 2·92; p=0·030). Incidence of other adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: High enteral protein provision compared with standard enteral protein provision resulted in worse health-related quality of life in critically ill patients and did not improve functional outcomes during 180 days after ICU admission. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Healthcare Research and Development and Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.

The impact of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery following intensive care admission: Protocol for a pre-planned secondary Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRECISe trial is a pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery in adult, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The current protocol presents the rationale and analysis plan for an evaluation of the primary and secondary outcomes under the Bayesian framework, with an emphasis on clinically important effect sizes. METHODS: This protocol was drafted in agreement with the ROBUST-statement, and is submitted for publication before database lock and primary data analysis. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L health utility score and is longitudinally assessed. Secondary outcomes comprise the 6-min walking test and handgrip strength over the entire follow-up period (longitudinal analyses), and 60-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and EQ-5D-5L health utility scores at 30, 90 and 180 days (cross-sectional). All analyses will primarily be performed under weakly informative priors. When available, informative priors elicited from contemporary literature will also be incorporated under alternative scenarios. In all other cases, objectively formulated skeptical and enthusiastic priors will be defined to assess the robustness of our results. Relevant identified subgroups were: patients with acute kidney injury, severe multi-organ failure and patients with or without sepsis. Results will be presented as absolute risk differences, mean differences, and odds ratios, with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Posterior probabilities will be estimated for clinically important benefit and harm. DISCUSSION: The proposed secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial will provide additional information on the effects of high protein on functional and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, such as probabilistic interpretation, probabilities of clinically important effect sizes, and the integration of prior evidence. As such, it will complement the interpretation of the primary outcome as well as several secondary and subgroup analyses.

The impact of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery following intensive care admission (PRECISE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled, quadruple blinded, multicenter, parallel group trial in mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are subject to severe skeletal muscle wasting during intensive care unit (ICU) stay, resulting in impaired short- and long-term functional outcomes and health-related quality of life. Increased protein provision may improve functional outcomes in ICU patients by attenuating skeletal muscle breakdown. Supporting evidence is limited however and results in great variety in recommended protein targets. METHODS: The PRECISe trial is an investigator-initiated, bi-national, multi-center, quadruple-blinded randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design. In 935 patients, we will compare provision of isocaloric enteral nutrition with either a standard or high protein content, providing 1.3 or 2.0 g of protein/kg/day, respectively, when fed on target. All unplanned ICU admissions with initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of admission and an expected stay on ventilator support of at least 3 days are eligible. The study is designed to assess the effect of the intervention on functional recovery at 1, 3, and 6 months following ICU admission, including health-related quality of life, measures of muscle strength, physical function, and mental health. The primary endpoint of the trial is health-related quality of life as measured by the Euro-QoL-5D-5-level questionnaire Health Utility Score. Overall between-group differences will be assessed over the three time points using linear mixed-effects models. DISCUSSION: The PRECISe trial will evaluate the effect of protein on functional recovery including both patient-centered and muscle-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04633421 . Registered on November 18, 2020. First patient in (FPI) on November 19, 2020. Expected last patient last visit (LPLV) in October 2023.

Predicting COVID-19 prognosis in the ICU remained challenging: external validation in a multinational regional cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Many prediction models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been developed. External validation is mandatory before implementation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We selected and validated prognostic models in the Euregio Intensive Care COVID (EICC) cohort. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this multinational cohort study, routine data from COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within the Euregio Meuse-Rhine were collected from March to August 2020. COVID-19 models were selected based on model type, predictors, outcomes, and reporting. Furthermore, general ICU scores were assessed. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and calibration by calibration-in-the-large and calibration plots. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results. RESULTS: 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, 29% were female, and ICU mortality was 36%. Nine out of 238 published models were externally validated. Pooled AUCs were between 0.53 and 0.70 and calibration-in-the-large between -9% and 6%. Calibration plots showed generally poor but, for the 4C Mortality score and Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) score, moderate calibration. CONCLUSION: Of the nine prognostic models that were externally validated in the EICC cohort, only two showed reasonable discrimination and moderate calibration. For future pandemics, better models based on routine data are needed to support admission decision-making.

Better COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit survival in females, independent of age, disease severity, comorbidities, and treatment.

Although male Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients have higher Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rates and a worse disease course, a comprehensive analysis of female and male ICU survival and underlying factors such as comorbidities, risk factors, and/or anti-infection/inflammatory therapy administration is currently lacking. Therefore, we investigated the association between sex and ICU survival, adjusting for these and other variables. In this multicenter observational cohort study, all patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to seven ICUs in one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany, and requiring vital organ support during the first pandemic wave were included. With a random intercept for a center, mixed-effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between sex and ICU survival. Models were adjusted for age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, comorbidities, and anti-infection/inflammatory therapy. Interaction terms were added to investigate effect modifications by sex with country and sex with obesity. A total of 551 patients (29% were females) were included. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years. Females were more often obese and smoked less frequently than males (p-value 0.001 and 0.042, respectively). APACHE II scores of females and males were comparable. Overall, ICU mortality was 12% lower in females than males (27% vs 39% respectively, p-value < 0.01) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.62 (95%CI 0.39-0.96, p-value 0.032) after adjustment for age and APACHE II score, 0.63 (95%CI 0.40-0.99, p-value 0.044) after additional adjustment for comorbidities, and 0.63 (95%CI 0.39-0.99, p-value 0.047) after adjustment for anti-infection/inflammatory therapy. No effect modifications by sex with country and sex with obesity were found (p-values for interaction > 0.23 and 0.84, respectively). ICU survival in female SARS-CoV-2 patients was higher than in male patients, independent of age, disease severity, smoking, obesity, comorbidities, anti-infection/inflammatory therapy, and country. Sex-specific biological mechanisms may play a role, emphasizing the need to address diversity, such as more sex-specific prediction, prognostic, and therapeutic approach strategies.

Differences and Similarities Among COVID-19 Patients Treated in Seven ICUs in Three Countries Within One Region: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate healthcare system-driven variation in general characteristics, interventions, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU within one Western European region across three countries. DESIGN: Multicenter observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients supported in the ICU during the first pandemic wave. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after ethical approval and data-sharing agreements. Descriptive statistics were performed to investigate country-related practice variation. From March 2, 2020, to August 12, 2020, 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, and 29% were female. At admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 15.0 ± 5.5, 16.8 ± 5.5, and 15.8 ± 5.3 (p = 0.002), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 4.4 ± 2.7, 7.4 ± 2.2, and 7.7 ± 3.2 (p < 0.001) in the Belgian, Dutch, and German parts of Euregio, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 22%, 42%, and 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences were observed in the frequency of organ support, antimicrobial/inflammatory therapy application, and ICU capacity. Mixed-multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that differences in ICU mortality were independent of age, sex, disease severity, comorbidities, support strategies, therapies, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within one region, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, differed significantly in general characteristics, applied interventions, and outcomes despite presumed genetic and socioeconomic background, admission diagnosis, access to international literature, and data collection are similar. Variances in healthcare systems' organization, particularly ICU capacity and admission criteria, combined with a rapidly spreading pandemic might be important drivers for the observed differences. Heterogeneity between patient groups but also healthcare systems should be presumed to interfere with outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019.

The "sex gap" in COVID-19 trials: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Many studies investigate the role of pharmacological treatments on disease course in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sex disparities in genetics, immunological responses, and hormonal mechanisms may underlie the substantially higher fatality rates reported in male COVID-19 patients. To optimise care for COVID-19 patients, prophylactic and therapeutic studies should include sex-specific design and analyses. Therefore, in this scoping review, we investigated whether studies on pharmacological treatment in COVID-19 were performed based on a priori sex-specific design or post-hoc sex-specific analyses. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, UpToDate, clinical trial.org, and MedRxiv for studies on pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 until June 6th, 2020. We included case series, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in humans (≥18 years) investigating antiviral, antimalarial, and immune system modulating drugs. Data were collected on 1) the proportion of included females, 2) whether sex stratification was performed (a priori by design or post-hoc), and 3) whether effect modification by sex was investigated. FINDINGS: 30 studies were eligible for inclusion, investigating remdesivir (n = 2), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 5), favipiravir (n = 1), umifenovir (n = 1), hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (n = 8), convalescent plasma (n = 6), interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway inhibitors (n = 5), interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway inhibitors (n = 1) and corticosteroids (n = 3). Only one study stratified its data based on sex in a post-hoc analysis, whereas none did a priori by design. None of the studies investigated effect modification by sex. A quarter of the studies included twice as many males as females. INTERPRETATION: Analyses assessing potential interference of sex with (side-)effects of pharmacological therapy for COVID-19 are rarely reported. Considering sex differences in case-fatality rates and genetic, immunological, and hormonal mechanisms, studies should include sex-specific analyses in their design to optimise COVID-19 care. FUNDING: None.