An Inhaled Galectin-3 Inhibitor in COVID-19 Pneumonitis: A Phase Ib/IIa Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (DEFINE).

Rationale: High circulating galectin-3 is associated with poor outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We hypothesized that GB0139, a potent inhaled thiodigalactoside galectin-3 inhibitor with antiinflammatory and antifibrotic actions, would be safely and effectively delivered in COVID-19 pneumonitis. Objectives: Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability of inhaled GB0139 as an add-on therapy for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonitis. Methods: We present the findings of two arms of a phase Ib/IIa randomized controlled platform trial in hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients received standard of care (SoC) or SoC plus 10 mg inhaled GB0139 twice daily for 48 hours, then once daily for up to 14 days or discharge. Measurements and Main Results: Data are reported from 41 patients, 20 of which were assigned randomly to receive GB0139. Primary outcomes: the GB0139 group experienced no treatment-related serious adverse events. Incidences of adverse events were similar between treatment arms (40 with GB0139 + SoC vs. 35 with SoC). Secondary outcomes: plasma GB0139 was measurable in all patients after inhaled exposure and demonstrated target engagement with decreased circulating galectin (overall treatment effect post-hoc analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] over days 2-7; P = 0.0099 vs. SoC). Plasma biomarkers associated with inflammation, fibrosis, coagulopathy, and major organ function were evaluated. Conclusions: In COVID-19 pneumonitis, inhaled GB0139 was well-tolerated and achieved clinically relevant plasma concentrations with target engagement. The data support larger clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04473053) and EudraCT (2020-002230-32).

Phase 2 randomised placebo-controlled trial of spironolactone and dexamethasone versus dexamethasone in COVID-19 hospitalised patients in Delhi.

BACKGROUND: In this phase 2 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with COVID-19, we hypothesised that blocking mineralocorticoid receptors using a combination of dexamethasone to suppress cortisol secretion and spironolactone is safe and may reduce illness severity. METHODS: Hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 were randomly allocated to low dose oral spironolactone (50 mg day 1, then 25 mg once daily for 21 days) or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio. Both groups received dexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days. Group allocation was blinded to the patient and research team. Primary outcomes were time to recovery, defined as the number of days until patients achieved WHO Ordinal Scale (OS) category ≤ 3, and the effect of spironolactone on aldosterone, D-dimer, angiotensin II and Von Willebrand Factor (VWF). RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients with PCR confirmed COVID were recruited in Delhi from 01 February to 30 April 2021. 74 were randomly assigned to spironolactone and dexamethasone (SpiroDex), and 46 to dexamethasone alone (Dex). There was no significant difference in the time to recovery between SpiroDex and Dex groups (SpiroDex median 4.5 days, Dex median 5.5 days, p = 0.055). SpiroDex patients had significantly lower D-dimer levels on days 4 and 7 (day 7 mean D-dimer: SpiroDex 1.15 µg/mL, Dex 3.15 µg/mL, p = 0.0004) and aldosterone at day 7 (SpiroDex 6.8 ng/dL, Dex 14.52 ng/dL, p = 0.0075). There was no difference in VWF or angiotensin II levels between groups. For secondary outcomes, SpiroDex patients had a significantly greater number of oxygen free days and reached oxygen freedom sooner than the Dex group. Cough scores were no different during the acute illness, however the SpiroDex group had lower scores at day 28. There was no difference in corticosteroid levels between groups. There was no increase in adverse events in patients receiving SpiroDex. CONCLUSION: Low dose oral spironolactone in addition to dexamethasone was safe and reduced D-dimer and aldosterone. Time to recovery was not significantly reduced. Phase 3 randomised controlled trials with spironolactone and dexamethasone should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on the Clinical Trials Registry of India TRI: CTRI/2021/03/031721, reference: REF/2021/03/041472. Registered on 04/03/2021.

How to set up a clinical trial.

Clinical trials are considered the gold-standard method for the evaluation of healthcare interventions. However, randomised control trials are complex to perform and many researchers, especially those in the early stages of their career, can find it challenging to know where to start set up, contribute to or lead a trial. This guide provides an introduction to trials and also practical advice to help potential investigators complete their clinical trial to time and to budget by signposting the pathway through the complex regulatory landscape. The authors draw on their own recent experiences of running clinical trials and provide tips and tricks for troubleshooting common problems encountered including trial design and documentation.

Development of Process Control Methodology for Tracking the Quality and Safety of Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Management in Critical Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. DESIGN: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. SETTING: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman ρ = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; κ = 0.66) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale (ρ = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician (κ = 0.58) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale (ρ = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician (κ = 0.29) and clinician-researcher (κ = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time.

C5a-mediated neutrophil dysfunction is RhoA-dependent and predicts infection in critically ill patients.

Critically ill patients are at heightened risk for nosocomial infections. The anaphylatoxin C5a impairs phagocytosis by neutrophils. However, the mechanisms by which this occurs and the relevance for acquisition of nosocomial infection remain undetermined. We aimed to characterize mechanisms by which C5a inhibits phagocytosis in vitro and in critically ill patients, and to define the relationship between C5a-mediated dysfunction and acquisition of nosocomial infection. In healthy human neutrophils, C5a significantly inhibited RhoA activation, preventing actin polymerization and phagocytosis. RhoA inhibition was mediated by PI3Kδ. The effects on RhoA, actin, and phagocytosis were fully reversed by GM-CSF. Parallel observations were made in neutrophils from critically ill patients, that is, impaired phagocytosis was associated with inhibition of RhoA and actin polymerization, and reversed by GM-CSF. Among a cohort of 60 critically ill patients, C5a-mediated neutrophil dysfunction (as determined by reduced CD88 expression) was a strong predictor for subsequent acquisition of nosocomial infection (relative risk, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-22; P = .0007), and remained independent of time effects as assessed by survival analysis (hazard ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-8.3; P = .01). In conclusion, this study provides new insight into the mechanisms underlying immunocompromise in critical illness and suggests novel avenues for therapy and prevention of nosocomial infection.

Randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat mesylate in COVID pneumonitis: Phase 1b/2a experimental study to investigate safety, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

BACKGROUND: Many repurposed drugs have progressed rapidly to Phase 2 and 3 trials in COVID19 without characterisation of Pharmacokinetics /Pharmacodynamics including safety data. One such drug is nafamostat mesylate. METHODS: We present the findings of a phase Ib/IIa open label, platform randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients were assigned randomly to standard of care (SoC), nafamostat or an alternative therapy. Nafamostat was administered as an intravenous infusion at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/h for a maximum of seven days. The analysis population included those who received any dose of the trial drug and all patients randomised to SoC. The primary outcomes of our trial were the safety and tolerability of intravenous nafamostat as an add on therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonitis. FINDINGS: Data is reported from 42 patients, 21 of which were randomly assigned to receive intravenous nafamostat. 86% of nafamostat-treated patients experienced at least one AE compared to 57% of the SoC group. The nafamostat group were significantly more likely to experience at least one AE (posterior mean odds ratio 5.17, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.10 - 26.05) and developed significantly higher plasma creatinine levels (posterior mean difference 10.57 micromol/L, 95% CI 2.43-18.92). An average longer hospital stay was observed in nafamostat patients, alongside a lower rate of oxygen free days (rate ratio 0.55-95% CI 0.31-0.99, respectively). There were no other statistically significant differences in endpoints between nafamostat and SoC. PK data demonstrated that intravenous nafamostat was rapidly broken down to inactive metabolites. We observed no significant anticoagulant effects in thromboelastometry. INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, we did not observe evidence of anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant or antiviral activity with intravenous nafamostat, and there were additional adverse events. FUNDING: DEFINE was funded by LifeArc (an independent medical research charity) under the STOPCOVID award to the University of Edinburgh. We also thank the Oxford University COVID-19 Research Response Fund (BRD00230).

Evaluation of new or repurposed treatments for COVID-19: protocol for the phase Ib/IIa DEFINE trial platform.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a new viral-induced pneumonia caused by infection with a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. At present, there are few proven effective treatments. This early-phase experimental medicine protocol describes an overarching and adaptive trial designed to provide safety data in patients with COVID-19, pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) information and exploratory biological surrogates of efficacy, which may support further development and deployment of candidate therapies in larger scale trials of patients positive for COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Define is an ongoing exploratory multicentre-platform, open-label, randomised study. Patients positive for COVID-19 will be recruited from the following cohorts: (a) community cases; (b) hospitalised patients with evidence of COVID-19 pneumonitis; and (c) hospitalised patients requiring assisted ventilation. The cohort recruited from will be dependent on the experimental therapy, its route of administration and mechanism of action. Randomisation will be computer generated in a 1:1:n ratio. Twenty patients will be recruited per arm for the initial two arms. This is permitted to change as per the experimental therapy. The primary statistical analyses are concerned with the safety of candidate agents as add-on therapy to standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Secondary analysis will assess the following variables during treatment period: (1) the response of key exploratory biomarkers; (2) change in WHO ordinal scale and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score; (3) oxygen requirements; (4) viral load; (5) duration of hospital stay; (6) PK/PD; and (7) changes in key coagulation pathways. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Define trial platform and its initial two treatment and standard of care arms have received a favourable ethical opinion from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (REC) (20/SS/0066), notice of acceptance from The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (EudraCT 2020-002230-32) and approval from the relevant National Health Service (NHS) Research and Development (R&D) departments (NHS Lothian and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde). Appropriate processes are in place in order to be able to consent adults with and without capacity while following the necessary COVID-19 safe procedures. Patients without capacity could be recruited via a legal representative. Witnessed electronic consent of participants or their legal representatives following consent discussions was established. The results of each study arm will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as soon as the treatment arm has finished recruitment, data input is complete and any outstanding patient safety follow-ups have been completed. Depending on the results of these or future arms, data will be shared with larger clinical trial networks, including the Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy trial (RECOVERY), and to other partners for rapid roll-out in larger patient cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14212905, NCT04473053.

Challenges and barriers to optimising sedation in intensive care: a qualitative study in eight Scottish intensive care units.

OBJECTIVES: Various strategies to promote light sedation are highly recommended in recent guidelines, as deep sedation is associated with suboptimum patient outcomes. Yet, the challenges met by clinicians in delivering high-quality analgosedation is rarely addressed. As part of the evaluation of a cluster-randomised quality improvement trial in eight Scottish intensive care units (ICUs), we aimed to understand the challenges to optimising sedation in the Scottish ICU settings prior to the trial. This article reports on the findings. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory design: We conducted focus groups (FG) with clinicians during the preintervention period. Setting and participants: Eight Scottish ICUs. Nurses, physiotherapists and doctors working in each ICU volunteered to participate. FG were recorded and verbatim transcribed and inserted in NVivo V.10 for analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken to develop emergent themes from the patterns identified in relation to sedation practice. Ethical approval was secured by Scotland A Research ethics committee. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the inductive analysis: (a) a recent shift in sedation practice, (b) uncertainty in decision-making and (c) system-level factors including the ICU environment, organisational factors and educational gaps. Clinicians were challenged daily to manage agitated or difficult-to-sedate patients in the era of a progressive mantra of 'just sedate less' imposed by the pain-agitation-delirium guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The current implementation of guidelines does not support behaviour change strategies to allow a patient-focused approach to sedation management, which obstructs optimum sedation-analgesia management. Recognition of the various challenges when mandating less sedation needs to be considered and novel sedation-analgesia strategies should allow a system-level approach to improve sedation-analgesia quality. DESIST REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01634451.

Cell-surface signatures of immune dysfunction risk-stratify critically ill patients: INFECT study.

PURPOSE: Cellular immune dysfunctions, which are common in intensive care patients, predict a number of significant complications. In order to effectively target treatments, clinically applicable measures need to be developed to detect dysfunction. The objective was to confirm the ability of cellular markers associated with immune dysfunction to stratify risk of secondary infection in critically ill patients. METHODS: Multi-centre, prospective observational cohort study of critically ill patients in four UK intensive care units. Serial blood samples were taken, and three cell surface markers associated with immune cell dysfunction [neutrophil CD88, monocyte human leucocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) and percentage of regulatory T cells (Tregs)] were assayed on-site using standardized flow cytometric measures. Patients were followed up for the development of secondary infections. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were recruited, with data available from 138. Reduced neutrophil CD88, reduced monocyte HLA-DR and elevated proportions of Tregs were all associated with subsequent development of infection with odds ratios (95% CI) of 2.18 (1.00-4.74), 3.44 (1.58-7.47) and 2.41 (1.14-5.11), respectively. Burden of immune dysfunction predicted a progressive increase in risk of infection, from 14% for patients with no dysfunction to 59% for patients with dysfunction of all three markers. The tests failed to risk stratify patients shortly after ICU admission but were effective between days 3 and 9. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms our previous findings that three cell surface markers can predict risk of subsequent secondary infection, demonstrates the feasibility of standardized multisite flow cytometry and presents a tool which can be used to target future immunomodulatory therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02186522).

Early PREdiction of sepsis using leukocyte surface biomarkers: the ExPRES-sepsis cohort study.

PURPOSE: Reliable biomarkers for predicting subsequent sepsis among patients with suspected acute infection are lacking. In patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with suspected acute infection, we aimed to evaluate the reliability and discriminant ability of 47 leukocyte biomarkers as predictors of sepsis (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥ 2 at 24 h and/or 72 h following ED presentation). METHODS: In a multi-centre cohort study in four EDs and intensive care units (ICUs), we standardised flow-cytometric leukocyte biomarker measurement and compared patients with suspected acute infection (cohort-1) with two comparator cohorts: ICU patients with established sepsis (cohort-2), and ED patients without infection or systemic inflammation but requiring hospitalization (cohort-3). RESULTS: Between January 2014 and February 2016, we recruited 272, 59 and 75 patients to cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Of 47 leukocyte biomarkers, 14 were non-reliable, and 17 did not discriminate between the three cohorts. Discriminant analyses for predicting sepsis within cohort-1 were undertaken for eight neutrophil (cluster of differentiation antigens (CD) CD15; CD24; CD35; CD64; CD312; CD11b; CD274; CD279), seven monocyte (CD35; CD64; CD312; CD11b; HLA-DR; CD274; CD279) and a CD8 T-lymphocyte biomarker (CD279). Individually, only higher neutrophil CD279 [OR 1.78 (95% CI 1.23-2.57); P = 0.002], higher monocyte CD279 [1.32 (1.03-1.70); P = 0.03], and lower monocyte HLA-DR [0.73 (0.55-0.97); P = 0.03] expression were associated with subsequent sepsis. With logistic regression the optimum biomarker combination was increased neutrophil CD24 and neutrophil CD279, and reduced monocyte HLA-DR expression, but no combination had clinically relevant predictive validity. CONCLUSIONS: From a large panel of leukocyte biomarkers, immunosuppression biomarkers were associated with subsequent sepsis in ED patients with suspected acute infection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02188992.

Rationale, design and methodology of a trial evaluating three strategies designed to improve sedation quality in intensive care units (DESIST study).

OBJECTIVES: To describe the rationale, design and methodology for a trial of three novel interventions developed to improve sedation-analgesia quality in adult intensive care units (ICUs). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 8 clusters, each a Scottish ICU. All mechanically ventilated sedated patients were potentially eligible for inclusion in data analysis. DESIGN: Cluster randomised design in 8 ICUs, with ICUs randomised after 45 weeks baseline data collection to implement one of four intervention combinations: a web-based educational programme (2 ICUs); education plus regular sedation quality feedback using process control charts (2 ICUs); education plus a novel sedation monitoring technology (2 ICUs); or all three interventions. ICUs measured sedation-analgesia quality, relevant drug use and clinical outcomes, during a 45-week preintervention and 45-week postintervention period separated by an 8-week implementation period. The intended sample size was >100 patients per site per study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of 12 h care periods with optimum sedation-analgesia, defined as the absence of agitation, unnecessary deep sedation, poor relaxation and poor ventilator synchronisation. Secondary outcomes were proportions of care periods with each of these four components of optimum sedation and rates of sedation-related adverse events. Sedative and analgesic drug use, and ICU and hospital outcomes were also measured. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Multilevel generalised linear regression mixed models will explore the effects of each intervention taking clustering into account, and adjusting for age, gender and APACHE II score. Sedation-analgesia quality outcomes will be explored at ICU level and individual patient level. A process evaluation using mixed methods including quantitative description of intervention implementation, focus groups and direct observation will provide explanatory information regarding any effects observed. CONCLUSIONS: The DESIST study uses a novel design to provide system-level evaluation of three contrasting complex interventions on sedation-analgesia quality. Recruitment is complete and analysis ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01634451.

Predictive value of cell-surface markers in infections in critically ill patients: protocol for an observational study (ImmuNe FailurE in Critical Therapy (INFECT) Study).

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients are at high risk of nosocomial infections, with between 20% and 40% of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) acquiring infections. These infections result in increased antibiotic use, and are associated with morbidity and mortality. Although critical illness is classically associated with hyperinflammation, the high rates of nosocomial infection argue for an importance of effect of impaired immunity. Our group recently demonstrated that a combination of 3 measures of immune cell function (namely neutrophil CD88, monocyte HLA-DR and % regulatory T cells) identified a patient population with a 2.4-5-fold greater risk for susceptibility to nosocomial infections. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective, observational study to determine whether previously identified markers of susceptibility to nosocomial infection can be validated in a multicentre population, as well as testing several novel markers which may improve the risk of nosocomial infection prediction. Blood samples from critically ill patients (those admitted to the ICU for at least 48 hours and requiring mechanical ventilation alone or support of 2 or more organ systems) are taken and undergo whole blood staining for a range of immune cell surface markers. These samples undergo analysis on a standardised flow cytometry platform. Patients are followed up to determine whether they develop nosocomial infection. Infections need to meet strict prespecified criteria based on international guidelines; where these criteria are not met, an adjudication panel of experienced intensivists is asked to rule on the presence of infection. Secondary outcomes will be death from severe infection (sepsis) and change in organ failure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval including the involvement of adults lacking capacity has been obtained from respective English and Scottish Ethics Committees. Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02186522; Pre-results.

Early PREdiction of Severe Sepsis (ExPRES-Sepsis) study: protocol for an observational derivation study to discover potential leucocyte cell surface biomarkers.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is an acute illness resulting from infection and the host immune response. Early identification of individuals at risk of developing life-threatening severe sepsis could enable early triage and treatment, and improve outcomes. Currently available biomarkers have poor predictive value for predicting subsequent clinical course in patients with suspected infection. Circulating leucocytes provide readily accessible tissues that reflect many aspects of the complex immune responses described in sepsis. We hypothesise that measuring cellular markers of immune responses by flow cytometry will enable early identification of infected patients at risk of adverse outcomes. We aim to characterise leucocyte surface markers (biomarkers) and their abnormalities in a population of patients presenting to the hospital emergency department with suspected sepsis, and explore their ability to predict subsequent clinical course. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a prospective, multicentre, clinical, exploratory, cohort observational study. To answer our study question, 3 patient populations will be studied. First, patients with suspected sepsis from the emergency department (n=300). To assess performance characteristics of potential tests, critically ill patients with established sepsis, and age and gender matched patients without suspicion of infection requiring hospital admission (both n=100) will be recruited as comparator populations. In all 3 groups, we plan to assess circulating biomarker profiles using flow cytometry. We will select candidate biomarkers by cross-cohort comparison, and then explore their predictive value for clinical outcomes within the cohort with suspected sepsis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be carried out based on the principles in the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Ethics approval has been granted from the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Oxford C REC. On conclusion of this study, the results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02188992; Pre-results.

Staff education, regular sedation and analgesia quality feedback, and a sedation monitoring technology for improving sedation and analgesia quality for critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal sedation of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) requires the avoidance of pain, agitation, and unnecessary deep sedation, but these outcomes are challenging to achieve. Excessive sedation can prolong ICU stay, whereas light sedation can increase pain and frightening memories, which are commonly recalled by ICU survivors. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of three interventions to improve sedation and analgesia quality: an online education programme; regular feedback of sedation-analgesia quality data; and use of a novel sedation-monitoring technology (the Responsiveness Index [RI]). METHODS: We did a cluster randomised trial in eight ICUs, which were randomly allocated to receive education alone (two ICUs), education plus sedation-analgesia quality feedback (two ICUs), education plus RI monitoring technology (two ICUs), or all three interventions (two ICUs). Randomisation was done with computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified according to recruitment start date. A 45 week baseline period was followed by a 45 week intervention period, separated by an 8 week implementation period in which the interventions were introduced. ICU and research staff were not masked to study group assignment during the intervention period. All mechanically ventilated patients were potentially eligible. We assessed patients' sedation-analgesia quality for each 12 h period of nursing care, and sedation-related adverse events daily. Our primary outcome was the proportion of care periods with optimal sedation-analgesia, defined as being free from excessive sedation, agitation, poor limb relaxation, and poor ventilator synchronisation. Analysis used multilevel generalised linear mixed modelling to explore intervention effects in a single model taking clustering and patient-level factors into account. A concurrent mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to help understand the trial findings. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01634451. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2014, we included 881 patients (9187 care periods) during the baseline period and 591 patients (6947 care periods) during the intervention period. During the baseline period, optimal sedation-analgesia was present for 5150 (56%) care periods. We found a significant improvement in optimal sedation-analgesia with RI monitoring (odds ratio [OR] 1·44 [95% CI 1·07-1·95]; p=0·017), which was mainly due to increased periods free from excessive sedation (OR 1·59 [1·09-2·31]) and poor ventilator synchronisation (OR 1·55 [1·05-2·30]). However, more patients experienced sedation-related adverse events (OR 1·91 [1·02-3·58]). We found no improvement in overall optimal sedation-analgesia with education (OR 1·13 [95% CI 0·86-1·48]), but fewer patients experienced sedation-related adverse events (OR 0·56 [0·32-0·99]). The sedation-analgesia quality data feedback did not improve quality (OR 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]) or sedation-related adverse events (OR 1·15 [0·61-2·15]). The process evaluation suggested many clinicians found the RI monitoring useful, but it was often not used for decision making as intended. Education was valued and considered useful by staff. By contrast, sedation-analgesia quality feedback was poorly understood and thought to lack relevance to bedside nursing practice. INTERPRETATION: Combination of RI monitoring and online education has the potential to improve sedation-analgesia quality and patient safety in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The RI monitoring seemed to improve sedation-analgesia quality, but inconsistent adoption by bedside nurses limited its impact. The online education programme resulted in a clinically relevant improvement in patient safety and was valued by nurses, but any changes to behaviours did not seem to alter other measures of sedation-analgesia quality. Providing sedation-analgesia quality feedback to ICUs did not appear to improve any quality metrics, probably because staff did not think it relevant to bedside practice. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office, Scotland; GE Healthcare.