Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial. METHODS: The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018.

Dynamic LED light versus static LED light for depressed inpatients: results from a randomized feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies conducted in psychiatric wards have indicated a shorter duration of stay for depressed inpatients in bright compared to dim daylight-exposed rooms, pointing to a possible antidepressant effect of daylight conditions. Dynamic LED lighting, aiming to mimic daylight conditions, are currently been installed in several hospitals, but their feasibility is poorly investigated. METHODS: To investigate the feasibility of these systems, we developed and installed a LED-lighting system in four rooms in a psychiatric inpatient ward. The system could function statically or dynamically regarding light intensity and colour temperature. The system consisted of (A) a large LED luminaire built into the window jamb mimicking sunlight reflections, (B) two LED light luminaires in the ceiling and (C) a LED reading luminaire. In the static mode, the systems provided constant light from A and B. In the dynamic mode, the system changed light intensity and colour temperature using A, B and C. Patients with unipolar or bipolar depression were randomised to dynamic or static LED lighting for 4 weeks, in addition to standard treatment. Primary outcome was the rate of patients discontinuing the trial due to discomfort from the lighting condition. Secondary outcomes were recruitment and dropout rates, visual comfort, depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation. RESULTS: No participants discontinued due to discomfort from the LED lighting. Recruitment rate was 39.8%, dropout from treatment rates were 56.3% in the dynamic group and 33.3% in the static group. 78.1% in the dynamic group were satisfied with the lighting compared with 71.8% in the static group. Discomfort from the light (glare) was reported by 11.5% in the dynamic group compared to 5.1% in the static group. Endpoint suicidal scores were 16.8 (10.4) in the dynamic and 16.3 (14.9) in the static group. The lighting system was 100% functional. The light sensor system proved unstable. CONCLUSION: Dropout from treatment was high primarily due to early discharge and with a lack of endpoint assessments. The feasibility study has influenced an upcoming large-scale dynamic lighting efficacy trial where we will use a shorter study period of 3 weeks and with more emphasis on endpoint assessments. The lighting was well tolerated in both groups, but some found intensity too low in the evening. Thus, we will use higher intensity blue-enriched light in the morning and higher intensity amber (blue-depleted) light in the evening in the upcoming study. The light sensor system needs to be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03363529.

Dynamic LED-light versus static LED-light for depressed inpatients: study protocol for a randomised clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Retrospective studies conducted in psychiatric inpatient wards have shown a relation between the intensity of daylight in patient rooms and the length of stay, pointing to an antidepressant effect of ambient lighting conditions. Light therapy has shown a promising antidepressant effect when administered from a light box. The emergence of light-emitting diode (LED) technology has made it possible to build luminaires into rooms and to dynamically mimic the spectral and temporal distribution of daylight. The objective of this study is to investigate the antidepressant efficacy of a newly developed dynamic LED-lighting system installed in an inpatient ward. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In all, 150 inpatients with a major depressive episode, as part of either a major depressive disorder or as part of a bipolar disorder, will be included. The design is a two-arm 1:1 randomised study with a dynamic LED-lighting arm and a static LED-lighting arm, both as add-on to usual treatment in an inpatient psychiatric ward. The primary outcome is the baseline adjusted score on the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 3. The secondary outcomes are the mean score on the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale at week 3, the mean score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 3 and the mean score on the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) at week 3. The spectral distribution of daylight and LED-light, with a specific focus on light mediated through the intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, will be measured. Use of light luminaires will be logged. Assessors of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and data analysts will be blinded for treatment allocation. The study was initiated in May 2019 and will end in December 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are expected. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, disseminated electronically and in print and presented at symposia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03821506; Pre-results.