Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Studies that have evaluated the use of intravenous vitamin C in adults with sepsis who were receiving vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shown mixed results with respect to the risk of death and organ dysfunction. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been in the ICU for no longer than 24 hours, who had proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis, and who were receiving a vasopressor to receive an infusion of either vitamin C (at a dose of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matched placebo administered every 6 hours for up to 96 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (defined by the use of vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new renal-replacement therapy) on day 28. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients underwent randomization (435 to the vitamin C group and 437 to the control group). The primary outcome occurred in 191 of 429 patients (44.5%) in the vitamin C group and in 167 of 434 patients (38.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01). At 28 days, death had occurred in 152 of 429 patients (35.4%) in the vitamin C group and in 137 of 434 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.40) and persistent organ dysfunction in 39 of 429 patients (9.1%) and 30 of 434 patients (6.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.05). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding organ-dysfunction scores, biomarkers, 6-month survival, health-related quality of life, stage 3 acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemic episodes. In the vitamin C group, one patient had a severe hypoglycemic episode and another had a serious anaphylaxis event. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with sepsis receiving vasopressor therapy in the ICU, those who received intravenous vitamin C had a higher risk of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days than those who received placebo. (Funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation; LOVIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03680274.).

Author Response.

Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan BK, Venkataraman R, Ramakrishnan N. Author Response. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):312.

Determinants of Implementation of a Critical Care Registry in Asia: Lessons From a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Research, Implementation, and Training in Critical Care in Asia (CCA) is implementing a critical care registry to capture real-time data to facilitate service evaluation, quality improvement, and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine stakeholder perspectives on the determinants of implementation of the registry by examining the processes of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability. METHODS: This study is a qualitative phenomenological inquiry using semistructured interviews with stakeholders involved in registry design, implementation, and use in 4 South Asian countries. The conceptual model of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery guided interviews and analysis. Interviews were coded using the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings procedure and were analyzed based on the constant comparison approach. RESULTS: A total of 32 stakeholders were interviewed. Analysis of stakeholder accounts identified 3 key themes: innovation-system fit; influence of champions; and access to resources and expertise. Determinants of implementation included data sharing, research experience, system resilience, communication and networks, and relative advantage and adaptability. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the registry has been possible due to efforts to increase the innovation-system fit, influence of motivated champions, and the support offered by access to resources and expertise. The reliance on individuals and the priorities of other health care actors pose a risk to sustainability.

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).

Evidence Supporting Clinical Use of Proportional Assist Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: While proportional assist ventilation (PAV), generates pressure in proportion to effort without a preselected target, proportional assist ventilation plus (PAV+) measures compliance and resistance, calculates work of breathing, and adjusts support to a preset assistance level. OBJECTIVE: To summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing invasive or noninvasive PAV or PAV+ in critically ill patients. Data Sources: We searched multiple databases to April 2017 without language restrictions and conference proceedings from 5 meetings to identify randomized parallel-group and crossover RCTs that compared invasive or noninvasive PAV or PAV+ to another mode in critically ill adults or children and reported at least 1 clinically important outcome. RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs (11 parallel group and 3 crossover) assessing PAV (n = 7) and PAV+ (n = 7) involving 931 adult patients. We found no effect of noninvasive PAV (vs noninvasive pressure support [PS]) on intubation (risk ratio 0.92 [0.59 to 1.43], I2 = 0%) or invasive PAV (vs invasive PS) on percentage rapid eye movement sleep (mean difference [MD] -2.93% [-14.20 to ±8.34], I2 = 43%). Compared to invasive PS, invasive PAV+ showed a nonsignificant increase in weaning time (MD +0.54 [-0.67 to +1.75] hours, I2 = 0%), but no effect on hospital mortality, reintubation, or tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the use of invasive or noninvasive PAV or invasive PAV+ in critically ill adults. Amid low to moderate heterogeneity, we identified 3 promising areas for future research including assessing the role of noninvasive PAV as an initial support strategy in patients with acute respiratory failure, invasive PAV on sleep quality during invasive ventilation, and possibly invasive PAV+ for weaning.

Coverage of antimicrobial resistance in the revised indian medical curriculum: Lip service only?

Background: The undergraduate medical curriculum has undergone a major revision. This study was designed to systematically review the revised Indian medical school curriculum to assess the extent of coverage of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antibiotic stewardship-related competencies. Methods: We undertook a document review of the recently revised Indian medical curriculum to identify the extent of coverage of competencies related to AMR and antibiotic stewardship. With the use of a previously described search strategy, we queried the online freely accessible version of the curriculum in duplicate and independently. We describe by volume, by subject and by the tenets of Miller's pyramid all references to AMR and stewardship. Results: Out of 2939 competencies that medical students are expected to complete over a 5.5-year period, 17 (0.57%) relate to AMR and antibiotic stewardship policies (ASP). There are no references to AMR or ASP in Pediatrics, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ear, Nose and Throat, Ophthalmology and Orthopedics. Community Medicine has few links through integrated teaching but has no direct AMR or ASP content. When categorized by Miller's domains, two of the competencies, both in Pharmacology, deal with the "Does" category, which is the practical skill gained by the student. There are five competencies which belong to the "Shows How" category and the remaining 10 belong to the knowledge categories. Discussion: There is poor coverage of AMR and stewardship in the revised Indian medical curriculum, suggesting that there is very little appreciation of the enormous threat that AMR poses to public health. This is a huge missed opportunity that needs immediate corrective action.

Breaking Barriers to Reach Farther: A Call for Urgent Action on Tele-ICU Services.

How to cite this article: Ramakrishnan N, Vijayaraghavan BKT, Venkataraman R. Breaking Barriers to Reach Farther: A Call for Urgent Action on Tele-ICU Services. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):393-397.

Antiepileptic Drugs to Prevent Seizures After Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background and Purpose- We sought to evaluate the available literature to determine whether primary seizure prevention with antiepileptic drugs reduces the risk of poor outcomes and clinically relevant seizures among adult patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods- Meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of any antiepileptic drug for primary seizure prevention among adult (≥18 years) patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. The primary end point was poor clinical outcome at the longest recorded follow-up, defined as either a high (>3) modified Rankin Scale score or all-cause mortality during follow-up if the modified Rankin Scale score was not recorded. Early and late seizures were secondary outcomes. A random mixed effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio of outcomes and associated 95% CI. Results- We identified 7 studies with a total of 3241 patients for analysis of the primary outcome and 4 studies with a total of 1861 patients for analysis of the secondary outcomes. Overall, the use of antiepileptic drugs was not associated with a high Rankin Scale or all-cause mortality (odds ratio: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.49) or incident seizures (odds ratio: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.52-1.51) at the longest recorded follow-up time. Conclusions- The use of antiepileptic drugs as primary prevention among adult patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage is not associated with improved neurological function during long-term follow-up. Future studies should focus on the preventive use of distinct antiepileptic agents among patients at high risk of both seizures and poor outcomes.

Improving Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Among Medical Students in India: The Sensitization of Medical Students on Antimicrobial Resistance (SOS-AMR) Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of an online educational intervention on improving knowledge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and stewardship among final-year medical students in Chennai, India. METHODS: This was a prospective 'before-after' study conducted across 5 medical colleges in Chennai, India. Participants who were final-year (fourth year) undergraduate medical students were administered a pretest to evaluate baseline knowledge. Students were then provided access to online educational material comprising 20 short lectures. Lectures were delivered by content experts and covered a range of topics which included basics of microbiology, fundamental concepts in AMR and stewardship, diagnosis and management of common infections, basics of antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and vaccination. Students were required to take a posttest at the end of these modules. Primary outcome was improvement in test scores from pretest baseline which was analyzed using a t test. A 30% improvement in the mean scores from baseline was predefined as a measure of success. RESULTS: A total of 599 students participated from 5 medical colleges among whom 339 (56.6%) were female participants; 542 (90.4%) students completed the posttest. Mean pretest score was 11.6 (maximum possible score of 25) (SD: 4.3) and the mean posttest score was 14.0 (SD: 4.6). Comparing pre and posttest scores, there was an improvement of 2.4 marks (20%) from the baseline (95% confidence interval: 1.9, 2.9) (P < .001). Improvement in scores was similar for male and female participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this before-after study evaluating the impact of an educational intervention on AMR among final-year medical students, there was an improvement in knowledge; however, the extent of improvement did not meet the predefined metric of success.

Prevalence of frailty and association with patient centered outcomes: A prospective registry-embedded cohort study from India.

PURPOSE: We aimed to study the prevalence of frailty, evaluate risk factors, and understand impact on outcomes in India. METHODS: This was a prospective registry-embedded cohort study across 7 intensive care units (ICUs) and included adult patients anticipated to stay for at least 48 h. Primary exposure was frailty, as defined by a score ≥ 5 on the Clinical Frailty Scale and primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. We used generalized linear models to evaluate risk factors and model association between frailty and outcomes. RESULTS: 838 patients were included, with median (IQR) age 57 (42,68) yrs.; 64.8% were male. Prevalence of frailty was 19.8%. Charlson comorbidity index (OR:1.73 (95%CI:1.39,2.15)), Subjective Global Assessment categories mild/moderate malnourishment (OR:1.90 (95%CI:1.29, 2.80)) and severe malnourishment (OR:4.76 (95% CI:2.10,10.77)) were associated with frailty. Frailty was associated with higher odds of ICU mortality (adjusted OR:2.04 (95% CI:1.25,3.33)), hospital mortality (adjusted OR:2.36 (95%CI:1.45,3.84)), development of stage2/3 AKI (unadjusted OR:2.35 (95%CI:1.60, 3.43)), receipt of non-invasive ventilation (unadjusted OR:2.68 (95%CI:1.77, 4.03)), receipt of vasopressors (unadjusted OR:1.47 (95%CI:1.04, 2.07)), and receipt of kidney replacement therapy (unadjusted OR:3.15 (95%CI:1.90, 5.17)). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is common among critically ill patients in India and is associated with worse outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: CTRI/2021/02/031503.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of higher dose dexamethasone by geographic region (Europe vs. India) in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia - a post hoc evaluation of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

Background: In the COVID-STEROID 2 trial there was suggestion of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) between patients enrolled from Europe vs. India on the primary outcome. Whether there was HTE for the remaining patient-centred outcomes is unclear. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the COVID-STEROID 2 trial, which compared 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, we evaluated HTE by geographical region (Europe vs. India) for secondary outcomes with analyses adjusted for stratification variables. Results are presented as risk differences (RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from interaction tests. Findings: There were differences in mortality at day 28 (RD for Europe -8.3% (99% CI: -17.7 to 1.0) vs. India 0.1% (99% CI: -10.0 to 10.0)), mortality at day 90 (RD for Europe -7.4% (99% CI: -17.1 to 2.0) vs. India -1.4% (99% CI: -12.8 to 9.8)), mortality at day 180 (RD for Europe -6.7% (99% CI: -16.4 to 2.9) vs. India -1.0% (99% CI: -12.3 to 10.3)), and number of days alive without life support at day 90 (MD for Europe 6.1 days (99% CI: -1.3 to 13.4) vs. India 1.7 days (99% CI: -8.4 to 11.8)). For serious adverse reactions, the direction was reversed (RD for Europe -1.0% (99% CI: -7.1 to 5.2) vs. India -5.3% (99% CI: -16.2 to 5.0). Interpretation: Our analysis suggests higher dose dexamethasone may have less beneficial effects for patients in India as compared with those in Europe; however, the evidence is weak, and this could represent a chance finding. Funding: None for this analysis. The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by The Novo Nordisk Foundation and supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Council.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital with and without respiratory symptoms.

Background: COVID-19 is primarily known as a respiratory illness; however, many patients present to hospital without respiratory symptoms. The association between non-respiratory presentations of COVID-19 and outcomes remains unclear. We investigated risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients with no respiratory symptoms (NRS) and respiratory symptoms (RS) at hospital admission. Methods: This study describes clinical features, physiological parameters, and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, stratified by the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms at hospital admission. RS patients had one or more of: cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose or wheezing; while NRS patients did not. Results: Of 178,640 patients in the study, 86.4 % presented with RS, while 13.6 % had NRS. NRS patients were older (median age: NRS: 74 vs RS: 65) and less likely to be admitted to the ICU (NRS: 36.7 % vs RS: 37.5 %). NRS patients had a higher crude in-hospital case-fatality ratio (NRS 41.1 % vs. RS 32.0 %), but a lower risk of death after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.88 [0.83-0.93]). Conclusion: Approximately one in seven COVID-19 patients presented at hospital admission without respiratory symptoms. These patients were older, had lower ICU admission rates, and had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for confounders.

Severity and outcomes of Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 compared to Delta variant and severity of Omicron sublineages: a systematic review and metanalysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare severity and clinical outcomes from Omicron as compared with the Delta variant and to compare outcomes between Omicron sublineages. METHODS: We searched the WHO COVID-19 Research database for studies that compared clinical outcomes for patients with Omicron variant and the Delta variant, and separately Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates of relative risk (RR) between variants and sublineages. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 index. Risk of bias was assessed using the tool developed by the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation team. RESULTS: Our search identified 1494 studies and 42 met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were published as preprints. Of the 42 studies, 29 adjusted for vaccination status; 12 had no adjustment; and for 1, the adjustment was unclear. Three of the included studies compared the sublineages of Omicron BA.1 versus BA.2. As compared with Delta, individuals infected with Omicron had 61% lower risk of death (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46) and 56% lower risk of hospitalisation (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.56). Omicron was similarly associated with lower risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, oxygen therapy, and non-invasive and invasive ventilation. The pooled risk ratio for the outcome of hospitalisation when comparing sublineages BA.1 versus BA.2 was 0.55 (95% 0.23 to 1.30). DISCUSSION: Omicron variant was associated with lower risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission, oxygen therapy, ventilation and death as compared with Delta. There was no difference in the risk of hospitalisation between Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022310880.

Liver injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An International observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Using a large dataset, we evaluated prevalence and severity of alterations in liver enzymes in COVID-19 and association with patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: We included hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) database. Key exposure was baseline liver enzymes (AST, ALT, bilirubin). Patients were assigned Liver Injury Classification score based on 3 components of enzymes at admission: Normal; Stage I) Liver injury: any component between 1-3x upper limit of normal (ULN); Stage II) Severe liver injury: any component ≥3x ULN. Outcomes were hospital mortality, utilization of selected resources, complications, and durations of hospital and ICU stay. Analyses used logistic regression with associations expressed as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 17,531 included patients, 46.2% (8099) and 8.2% (1430) of patients had stage 1 and 2 liver injury respectively. Compared to normal, stages 1 and 2 were associated with higher odds of mortality (OR 1.53 [1.37-1.71]; OR 2.50 [2.10-2.96]), ICU admission (OR 1.63 [1.48-1.79]; OR 1.90 [1.62-2.23]), and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 1.43 [1.27-1.70]; OR 1.95 (1.55-2.45). Stages 1 and 2 were also associated with higher odds of developing sepsis (OR 1.38 [1.27-1.50]; OR 1.46 [1.25-1.70]), acute kidney injury (OR 1.13 [1.00-1.27]; OR 1.59 [1.32-1.91]), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 1.38 [1.22-1.55]; OR 1.80 [1.49-2.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Liver enzyme abnormalities are common among COVID-19 patients and associated with worse outcomes.

Implementation of Recommendations on the Use of Corticosteroids in Severe COVID-19.

Importance: Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives: To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure: Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results: Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Sepsis).

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Sepsis trial. Design setting and participants: The Mega-ROX Sepsis trial is an international randomised clinical trial that will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-patient registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We anticipate that between 10,000 and 13,000 patients with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU will be enrolled in this trial. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 days from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of patients discharged home. Results and conclusions: Mega-ROX Sepsis will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The protocol and a prespecified approach to analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias.

Estimates of Sepsis Prevalence and Outcomes in Adult Patients in the ICU in India: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a global health problem. Limited data exist on the prevalence of sepsis using current definitions in ICUs in India. RESEARCH QUESTION: In adult patients admitted to ICUs in India, what is the prevalence of sepsis using the previous (Second International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock [Sepsis-2]) and current (Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock [Sepsis-3]) definitions? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, multicentre, 1-day, cross-sectional study. The primary outcome was the sepsis prevalence using both the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions and their concordance (using Cohen's κ coefficient). Additional outcomes included reporting on current microbiological characteristics, antimicrobial use, multidrug-resistant infections, and 30-day discharge and mortality status in patients with sepsis. RESULTS: A total of 35 ICUs (85.7% private, 14.3% public) participated, enrolling 680 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 24 years]; 62.1% men). The most common primary diagnosis was renal disease, and common comorbidities were diabetes (44.0%) and chronic renal failure (11.6%). The sepsis prevalence on the study day was 382 of 677 patients (56.4%). Prevalence by Sepsis-3 and Sepsis-2 definitions was 33.2% and 46.2%, respectively, with minimal concordance (κ = 0.32). In patients with sepsis, the most common microorganisms were bacterial (77.9%) followed by fungal (14.1%) infections. Approximately 45% of infections were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Mortality at 30 days after the study day (27.6% vs 5.3%; P < .01) and rates of discharge against medical advice (12.8% vs 4.9%; P < .01) were significantly higher in the sepsis cohort compared with the cohort without sepsis, respectively. INTERPRETATION: This multicenter point prevalence study in Indian ICUs showed a high burden of sepsis using both Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria, with associated high rates of antimicrobial resistance and mortality. These findings have implications for public health and future research.

Barriers and facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in health-related outcomes for critically ill adults in low and lower-middle income countries need systematic investments in research capacity and infrastructure. High-quality research has been shown to strengthen health systems; yet, research contributions from these regions remain negligible or absent. We undertook a scoping review to describe barriers and facilitators for the conduct of critical care research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2021 using a strategy that combined keyword and controlled vocabulary terms. We included original studies that reported on barriers or facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in these settings. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and where necessary, the full-text to select eligible studies. For each study, reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form. Barriers and facilitators were classified along the lines of a previous review and based on additional themes that emerged. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. RESULTS: We identified 2693 citations, evaluated 49 studies and identified 6 for inclusion. Of the included studies, four were qualitative, one was a cross-sectional survey and one was reported as an 'analysis'. The total number of participants ranged from 20-100 and included physicians, nurses, allied healthcare workers and researchers. Barriers identified included limited funding, poor institutional & national investment, inadequate access to mentors, absence of training in research methods, limited research support staff, and absence of statistical support. Our review identified potential solutions such as developing a mentorship network, streamlining of regulatory processes, implementing a centralized institutional research agenda, developing a core-outcome dataset and enhancing access to low-cost technology. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review highlights important barriers to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries, identifies potential solutions, and informs researchers, policymakers and governments on the steps necessary for strengthening research systems.