Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

Joint Longitudinal Models for Dealing With Missing at Random Data in Trial-Based Economic Evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: In trial-based economic evaluation, some individuals are typically associated with missing data at some time point, so that their corresponding aggregated outcomes (eg, quality-adjusted life-years) cannot be evaluated. Restricting the analysis to the complete cases is inefficient and can result in biased estimates, while imputation methods are often implemented under a missing at random (MAR) assumption. We propose the use of joint longitudinal models to extend standard approaches by taking into account the longitudinal structure to improve the estimation of the targeted quantities under MAR. METHODS: We compare the results from methods that handle missingness at an aggregated (case deletion, baseline imputation, and joint aggregated models) and disaggregated (joint longitudinal models) level under MAR. The methods are compared using a simulation study and applied to data from 2 real case studies. RESULTS: Simulations show that, according to which data affect the missingness process, aggregated methods may lead to biased results, while joint longitudinal models lead to valid inferences under MAR. The analysis of the 2 case studies support these results as both parameter estimates and cost-effectiveness results vary based on the amount of data incorporated into the model. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses suggest that methods implemented at the aggregated level are potentially biased under MAR as they ignore the information from the partially observed follow-up data. This limitation can be overcome by extending the analysis to a longitudinal framework using joint models, which can incorporate all the available evidence.

Flexible Bayesian longitudinal models for cost-effectiveness analyses with informative missing data.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are recommended to include sensitivity analyses which make a range of contextually plausible assumptions about missing data. However, with longitudinal data on, for example, patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), the missingness patterns can be complicated because data are often missing both at specific timepoints (interim missingness) and following loss to follow-up. Methods to handle these complex missing data patterns have not been developed for CEA, and must recognize that data may be missing not at random, while accommodating both the correlation between costs and health outcomes and the non-normal distribution of these endpoints. We develop flexible Bayesian longitudinal models that allow the impact of interim missingness and loss to follow-up to be disentangled. This modeling framework enables studies to undertake sensitivity analyses according to various contextually plausible missing data mechanisms, jointly model costs and outcomes using appropriate distributions, and recognize the correlation among these endpoints over time. We exemplify these models in the REFLUX study in which 52% of participants had HRQoL data missing for at least one timepoint over the 5-year follow-up period. We provide guidance for sensitivity analyses and accompanying code to help future studies handle these complex forms of missing data.

A framework for extending trial design to facilitate missing data sensitivity analyses.

BACKGROUND: Missing data are an inevitable challenge in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), particularly those with Patient Reported Outcome Measures. Methodological guidance suggests that to avoid incorrect conclusions, studies should undertake sensitivity analyses which recognise that data may be 'missing not at random' (MNAR). A recommended approach is to elicit expert opinion about the likely outcome differences for those with missing versus observed data. However, few published trials plan and undertake these elicitation exercises, and so lack the external information required for these sensitivity analyses. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework that anticipates and allows for MNAR data in the design and analysis of clinical trials. METHODS: We developed a framework for performing and using expert elicitation to frame sensitivity analysis in RCTs with missing outcome data. The framework includes the following steps: first defining the scope of the elicitation exercise, second developing the elicitation tool, third eliciting expert opinion about the missing outcomes, fourth evaluating the elicitation results, and fifth analysing the trial data. We provide guidance on key practical challenges that arise when adopting this approach in trials: the criteria for identifying relevant experts, the outcome scale for presenting data to experts, the appropriate representation of expert opinion, and the evaluation of the elicitation results.The framework was developed within the POPPI trial, which investigated whether a preventive, complex psychological intervention, commenced early in ICU, would reduce the development of patient-reported post-traumatic stress disorder symptom severity, and improve health-related quality of life. We illustrate the key aspects of the proposed framework using the POPPI trial. RESULTS: For the POPPI trial, 113 experts were identified with potentially suitable knowledge and asked to participate in the elicitation exercise. The 113 experts provided 59 usable elicitation questionnaires. The sensitivity analysis found that the results from the primary analysis were robust to alternative MNAR mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies can adopt this framework to embed expert elicitation within the design of clinical trials. This will provide the information required for MNAR sensitivity analyses that examine the robustness of the trial conclusions to alternative, but realistic assumptions about the missing data.

Effect of Reduced Exposure to Vasopressors on 90-Day Mortality in Older Critically Ill Patients With Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vasopressors are commonly administered to intensive care unit (ICU) patients to raise blood pressure. Balancing risks and benefits of vasopressors is a challenge, particularly in older patients. Objective: To determine whether reducing exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] target, 60-65 mm Hg) reduces mortality at 90 days in ICU patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 65 ICUs in the United Kingdom and included 2600 randomized patients aged 65 years or older with vasodilatory hypotension (assessed by treating clinician). The study was conducted from July 2017 to March 2019, and follow-up was completed in August 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to vasopressors guided either by MAP target (60-65 mm Hg, permissive hypotension) (n = 1291) or according to usual care (at the discretion of treating clinicians) (n = 1307). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Results: Of 2600 randomized patients, after removal of those who declined or had withdrawn consent, 2463 (95%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (mean [SD] age 75 years [7 years]; 1387 [57%] men). Patients randomized to the permissive hypotension group had lower exposure to vasopressors compared with those in the usual care group (median duration 33 hours vs 38 hours; difference in medians, -5.0; 95% CI, -7.8 to -2.2 hours; total dose in norepinephrine equivalents median, 17.7 mg vs 26.4 mg; difference in medians, -8.7 mg; 95% CI, -12.8 to -4.6 mg). At 90 days, 500 of 1221 (41.0%) in the permissive hypotension compared with 544 of 1242 (43.8%) in the usual care group had died (absolute risk difference, -2.85%; 95% CI, -6.75 to 1.05; P = .15) (unadjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03). When adjusted for prespecified baseline variables, the odds ratio for 90-day mortality was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98). Serious adverse events were reported for 79 patients (6.2%) in the permissive care group and 75 patients (5.8%) in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were acute renal failure (41 [3.2%] vs 33 [2.5%]) and supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia (12 [0.9%] vs 13 [1.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients 65 years or older receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality at 90 days. However, the confidence interval around the point estimate for the primary outcome should be considered when interpreting the clinical importance of the study. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10580502.

A flexible hierarchical framework for improving inference in area-referenced environmental health studies.

Study designs where data have been aggregated by geographical areas are popular in environmental epidemiology. These studies are commonly based on administrative databases and, providing a complete spatial coverage, are particularly appealing to make inference on the entire population. However, the resulting estimates are often biased and difficult to interpret due to unmeasured confounders, which typically are not available from routinely collected data. We propose a framework to improve inference drawn from such studies exploiting information derived from individual-level survey data. The latter are summarized in an area-level scalar score by mimicking at ecological level the well-known propensity score methodology. The literature on propensity score for confounding adjustment is mainly based on individual-level studies and assumes a binary exposure variable. Here, we generalize its use to cope with area-referenced studies characterized by a continuous exposure. Our approach is based upon Bayesian hierarchical structures specified into a two-stage design: (i) geolocated individual-level data from survey samples are up-scaled at ecological level, then the latter are used to estimate a generalized ecological propensity score (EPS) in the in-sample areas; (ii) the generalized EPS is imputed in the out-of-sample areas under different assumptions about the missingness mechanisms, then it is included into the ecological regression, linking the exposure of interest to the health outcome. This delivers area-level risk estimates, which allow a fuller adjustment for confounding than traditional areal studies. The methodology is illustrated by using simulations and a case study investigating the risk of lung cancer mortality associated with nitrogen dioxide in England (UK).

Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute Organ Dysfunction in Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing drug with inotropic and other properties that may improve outcomes in patients with sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to investigate whether levosimendan reduces the severity of organ dysfunction in adults with sepsis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a blinded infusion of levosimendan (at a dose of 0.05 to 0.2 µg per kilogram of body weight per minute) for 24 hours or placebo in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the intensive care unit up to day 28 (scores for each of five systems range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction; maximum score, 20). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. RESULTS: The trial recruited 516 patients; 259 were assigned to receive levosimendan and 257 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) SOFA score between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (6.68±3.96 vs. 6.06±3.89; mean difference, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 1.29; P=0.053). Mortality at 28 days was 34.5% in the levosimendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.5 to 11.7; P=0.43). Among patients requiring ventilation at baseline, those in the levosimendan group were less likely than those in the placebo group to be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation over the period of 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P=0.03). More patients in the levosimendan group than in the placebo group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of levosimendan to standard treatment in adults with sepsis was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction or lower mortality. Levosimendan was associated with a lower likelihood of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and a higher risk of supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. (Funded by the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and others; LeoPARDS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN12776039 .).

A full Bayesian model to handle structural ones and missingness in economic evaluations from individual-level data.

Economic evaluations from individual-level data are an important component of the process of technology appraisal, with a view to informing resource allocation decisions. A critical problem in these analyses is that both effectiveness and cost data typically present some complexity (eg, nonnormality, spikes, and missingness) that should be addressed using appropriate methods. However, in routine analyses, standardised approaches are typically used, possibly leading to biassed inferences. We present a general Bayesian framework that can handle the complexity. We show the benefits of using our approach with a motivating example, the MenSS trial, for which there are spikes at one in the effectiveness and missingness in both outcomes. We contrast a set of increasingly complex models and perform sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the conclusions to a range of plausible missingness assumptions. We demonstrate the flexibility of our approach with a second example, the PBS trial, and extend the framework to accommodate the characteristics of the data in this study. This paper highlights the importance of adopting a comprehensive modelling approach to economic evaluations and the strategic advantages of building these complex models within a Bayesian framework.

Effect of a Nurse-Led Preventive Psychological Intervention on Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A meta-analysis of outcomes during the 6 months after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge indicate a prevalence for clinically important posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms of 25%. Objective: To determine whether a nurse-led preventive, complex psychological intervention, initiated in the ICU, reduces patient-reported PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, parallel-group, cluster-randomized clinical trial with integrated economic and process evaluations conducted in 24 ICUs in the United Kingdom. Participants were critically ill patients who regained mental capacity following receipt of level 3 (intensive) care. A total of 2961 eligible patients were identified from September 2015 to January 2017. A total of 2048 were approached for participation in the ICU, of which 1458 provided informed consent. Follow-up was completed December 2017. Interventions: Twenty four ICUs were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. Intervention ICUs (n = 12; 669 participants) delivered usual care during a baseline period followed by an intervention period. The preventive, complex psychological intervention comprised promotion of a therapeutic ICU environment plus 3 stress support sessions and a relaxation and recovery program delivered by trained ICU nurses to high-risk (acutely stressed) patients. Control ICUs (n = 12; 789 participants) delivered usual care in both baseline and intervention periods. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was PTSD symptom severity among survivors at 6 months measured using the PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report questionnaire (score range, 0-51, with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity; the minimal clinically important difference was considered to be 4.2 points). Results: Among 1458 enrolled patients (mean [SD] age, 58 [16] years; 599 women [41%]), 1353 (93%) completed the study and were included in the final analysis. At 6 months, the mean PTSD Symptom Scale-Self-Report questionnaire score in intervention ICUs was 11.8 (baseline period) compared with 11.5 (intervention period) (difference, -0.40 [95% CI, -2.46 to 1.67]) and in control ICUs, 10.1 (baseline period) compared with 10.2 (intervention period) (difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -1.74 to 1.85]) between periods. There was no significant difference in PTSD symptom severity at 6 months (treatment effect estimate [difference in differences] of -0.03 [95% CI, -2.58 to 2.52]; P = .98). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients in the ICU, a nurse-led preventive, complex psychological intervention did not significantly reduce patient-reported PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. These findings do not support the use of this psychological intervention. Trial Registration: ISRCTN53448131.

A Bayesian framework for health economic evaluation in studies with missing data.

Health economics studies with missing data are increasingly using approaches such as multiple imputation that assume that the data are "missing at random." This assumption is often questionable, as-even given the observed data-the probability that data are missing may reflect the true, unobserved outcomes, such as the patients' true health status. In these cases, methodological guidelines recommend sensitivity analyses to recognise data may be "missing not at random" (MNAR), and call for the development of practical, accessible approaches for exploring the robustness of conclusions to MNAR assumptions. Little attention has been paid to the problem that data may be MNAR in health economics in general and in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) in particular. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian framework for CEA where outcome or cost data are missing. Our framework includes a practical, accessible approach to sensitivity analysis that allows the analyst to draw on expert opinion. We illustrate the framework in a CEA comparing an endovascular strategy with open repair for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, and provide software tools to implement this approach.

Developing a Bayesian adaptive design for a phase I clinical trial: a case study for a novel HIV treatment.

The design of phase I studies is often challenging, because of limited evidence to inform study protocols. Adaptive designs are now well established in cancer but much less so in other clinical areas. A phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile and antiretroviral efficacy of C34-PEG4 -Chol, a novel peptide fusion inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection, has been set up with Medical Research Council funding. During the study workup, Bayesian adaptive designs based on the continual reassessment method were compared with a more standard rule-based design, with the aim of choosing a design that would maximise the scientific information gained from the study. The process of specifying and evaluating the design options was time consuming and required the active involvement of all members of the trial's protocol development team. However, the effort was worthwhile as the originally proposed rule-based design has been replaced by a more efficient Bayesian adaptive design. While the outcome to be modelled, design details and evaluation criteria are trial specific, the principles behind their selection are general. This case study illustrates the steps required to establish a design in a novel context. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Development of a practical approach to expert elicitation for randomised controlled trials with missing health outcomes: Application to the IMPROVE trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The analyses of randomised controlled trials with missing data typically assume that, after conditioning on the observed data, the probability of missing data does not depend on the patient's outcome, and so the data are 'missing at random' . This assumption is usually implausible, for example, because patients in relatively poor health may be more likely to drop out. Methodological guidelines recommend that trials require sensitivity analysis, which is best informed by elicited expert opinion, to assess whether conclusions are robust to alternative assumptions about the missing data. A major barrier to implementing these methods in practice is the lack of relevant practical tools for eliciting expert opinion. We develop a new practical tool for eliciting expert opinion and demonstrate its use for randomised controlled trials with missing data. METHODS: We develop and illustrate our approach for eliciting expert opinion with the IMPROVE trial (ISRCTN 48334791), an ongoing multi-centre randomised controlled trial which compares an emergency endovascular strategy versus open repair for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. In the IMPROVE trial at 3 months post-randomisation, 21% of surviving patients did not complete health-related quality of life questionnaires (assessed by EQ-5D-3L). We address this problem by developing a web-based tool that provides a practical approach for eliciting expert opinion about quality of life differences between patients with missing versus complete data. We show how this expert opinion can define informative priors within a fully Bayesian framework to perform sensitivity analyses that allow the missing data to depend upon unobserved patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 26 experts, of 46 asked to participate, completed the elicitation exercise. The elicited quality of life scores were lower on average for the patients with missing versus complete data, but there was considerable uncertainty in these elicited values. The missing at random analysis found that patients randomised to the emergency endovascular strategy versus open repair had higher average (95% credible interval) quality of life scores of 0.062 (-0.005 to 0.130). Our sensitivity analysis that used the elicited expert information as pooled priors found that the gain in average quality of life for the emergency endovascular strategy versus open repair was 0.076 (-0.054 to 0.198). CONCLUSION: We provide and exemplify a practical tool for eliciting the expert opinion required by recommended approaches to the sensitivity analyses of randomised controlled trials. We show how this approach allows the trial analysis to fully recognise the uncertainty that arises from making alternative, plausible assumptions about the reasons for missing data. This tool can be widely used in the design, analysis and interpretation of future trials, and to facilitate this, materials are available for download.

Effect of Early Vasopressin vs Norepinephrine on Kidney Failure in Patients With Septic Shock: The VANISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Norepinephrine is currently recommended as the first-line vasopressor in septic shock; however, early vasopressin use has been proposed as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A factorial (2×2), double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 general adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom between February 2013 and May 2015, enrolling adult patients who had septic shock requiring vasopressors despite fluid resuscitation within a maximum of 6 hours after the onset of shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to vasopressin (titrated up to 0.06 U/min) and hydrocortisone (n = 101), vasopressin and placebo (n = 104), norepinephrine and hydrocortisone (n = 101), or norepinephrine and placebo (n = 103). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was kidney failure-free days during the 28-day period after randomization, measured as (1) the proportion of patients who never developed kidney failure and (2) median number of days alive and free of kidney failure for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both. Rates of renal replacement therapy, mortality, and serious adverse events were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients (median age, 66 years; men, 58.2%) were included in the study, with a median time to study drug administration of 3.5 hours after diagnosis of shock. The number of survivors who never developed kidney failure was 94 of 165 patients (57.0%) in the vasopressin group and 93 of 157 patients (59.2%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -13.0% to 8.5%]). The median number of kidney failure-free days for patients who did not survive, who experienced kidney failure, or both was 9 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1 to -24) in the vasopressin group and 13 days (IQR, 1 to -25) in the norepinephrine group (difference, -4 days [95% CI, -11 to 5]). There was less use of renal replacement therapy in the vasopressin group than in the norepinephrine group (25.4% for vasopressin vs 35.3% for norepinephrine; difference, -9.9% [95% CI, -19.3% to -0.6%]). There was no significant difference in mortality rates between groups. In total, 22 of 205 patients (10.7%) had a serious adverse event in the vasopressin group vs 17 of 204 patients (8.3%) in the norepinephrine group (difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -3.3% to 8.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with septic shock, the early use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine did not improve the number of kidney failure-free days. Although these findings do not support the use of vasopressin to replace norepinephrine as initial treatment in this situation, the confidence interval included a potential clinically important benefit for vasopressin, and larger trials may be warranted to assess this further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ISRCTN 20769191.

The interaction of vasopressin and corticosteroids in septic shock: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Vasopressin and corticosteroids are both commonly used adjunctive therapies in septic shock. Retrospective analyses have suggested that there may be an interaction between these drugs, with higher circulating vasopressin levels and improved outcomes in patients treated with both vasopressin and corticosteroids. We aimed to test for an interaction between vasopressin and corticosteroids in septic shock. DESIGN: Prospective open-label randomized controlled pilot trial. SETTING: Four adult ICUs in London teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Sixty-one adult patients who had septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Initial vasopressin IV infusion titrated up to 0.06 U/min and then IV hydrocortisone (50 mg 6 hourly) or placebo. Plasma vasopressin levels were measured at 6-12 and 24-36 hours after hydrocortisone/placebo administration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were allocated to vasopressin + hydrocortisone and 30 patients to vasopressin + placebo. The hydrocortisone group required a shorter duration of vasopressin therapy (3.1 d; 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; shorter in hydrocortisone group) and required a lower total dose of vasopressin (ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.71) compared with the placebo group. Plasma vasopressin levels were not higher in the hydrocortisone group compared with the placebo group (64 pmol/L difference at 6- to 12-hour time point; 95% CI, -32 to 160 pmol/L). Early vasopressin use was well tolerated with only one serious adverse event possibly related to study drug administration reported. There were no differences in mortality rates (23% 28-day mortality in both groups) or organ failure assessments between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrocortisone spared vasopressin requirements, reduced duration, and reduced dose, when used together in the treatment of septic shock, but it did not alter plasma vasopressin levels. Further trials are needed to assess the clinical effectiveness of vasopressin as the initial vasopressor therapy with or without corticosteroids.

Reduced exposure to vasopressors through permissive hypotension to reduce mortality in critically ill people aged 65 and over: the 65 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are administered to critical care patients to avoid hypotension, which is associated with myocardial injury, kidney injury and death. However, they work by causing vasoconstriction, which may reduce blood flow and cause other adverse effects. A mean arterial pressure target typically guides administration. An individual patient data meta-analysis (Lamontagne F, Day AG, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Hylands M, et al. Pooled analysis of higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy septic and vasodilatory shock. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:12-21) suggested that greater exposure, through higher mean arterial pressure targets, may increase risk of death in older patients. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reduced vasopressor exposure through permissive hypotension (i.e. a lower mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg) in older critically ill patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial with integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Sixty-five NHS adult general critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention - permissive hypotension (i.e. a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg). Control (usual care) - a mean arterial pressure target at the treating clinician's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. The primary cost-effectiveness outcome was 90-day incremental net monetary benefit. Secondary outcomes included receipt and duration of advanced respiratory and renal support, mortality at critical care and acute hospital discharge, and questionnaire assessment of cognitive decline and health-related quality of life at 90 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Of 2600 patients randomised, 2463 (permissive hypotension, n = 1221; usual care, n = 1242) were analysed for the primary clinical outcome. Permissive hypotension resulted in lower exposure to vasopressors than usual care [mean duration 46.0 vs. 55.9 hours, difference -9.9 hours (95% confidence interval -14.3 to -5.5 hours); total noradrenaline-equivalent dose 31.5 mg vs. 44.3 mg, difference -12.8 mg (95% CI -18.0 mg to -17.6 mg)]. By 90 days, 500 (41.0%) patients in the permissive hypotension group and 544 (43.8%) patients in the usual-care group had died (absolute risk difference -2.85%, 95% confidence interval -6.75% to 1.05%; p = 0.154). Adjustment for prespecified baseline variables resulted in an odds ratio for 90-day mortality of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98) favouring permissive hypotension. There were no significant differences in prespecified secondary outcomes or subgroups; however, patients with chronic hypertension showed a mortality difference favourable to permissive hypotension. At 90 days, permissive hypotension showed similar costs to usual care. However, with higher incremental life-years and quality-adjusted life-years in the permissive hypotension group, the incremental net monetary benefit was positive, but with high statistical uncertainty (£378, 95% confidence interval -£1347 to £2103). LIMITATIONS: The intervention was unblinded, with risk of bias minimised through central allocation concealment and a primary outcome not subject to observer bias. The control group event rate was higher than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving vasopressors for vasodilatory hypotension, permissive hypotension did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality compared with usual care. The absolute treatment effect on 90-day mortality, based on 95% confidence intervals, was between a 6.8-percentage reduction and a 1.1-percentage increase in mortality. FUTURE WORK: Future work should (1) update the individual patient data meta-analysis, (2) explore approaches for evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effect and (3) explore 65 trial conduct, including use of deferred consent, to inform future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10580502. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Low blood pressure is common in patients in intensive care. It is associated with a high risk of death. It can be treated with drugs called vasopressors. These drugs raise blood pressure, but also come with risks and side effects. Usually, a blood pressure target is used to guide how much of the drugs to give to patients. Two previous clinical trials suggested that using a lower blood pressure target (and therefore giving less of the drugs) might reduce the number of deaths among older patients. However, although these results were promising, more research was needed to find out if they were correct. The 65 trial was carried out to test if using a lower blood pressure target really did improve outcomes for older patients. The trial also looked at whether or not it would provide value for money for the NHS. A total of 2600 patients aged ≥ 65 years who had low blood pressure in intensive care joined the trial. Half were randomly assigned to the new lower blood pressure target (less drugs). The other half were assigned to usual care (control group). As we had hoped, patients in the low blood pressure target group received less vasopressor drugs than the usual-care group. After 90 days, 41% of patients in the new low blood pressure target group had died, compared with 44% in the usual-care group. Although fewer patients died in the low blood pressure target group, the difference was small and may have occurred by chance. On average, the new target saved a small amount of money for the NHS. Although we could not prove that use of a lower blood pressure target saves lives for older patients in intensive care, our trial suggests that it might. Receiving less vasopressor drugs appeared safe for patients.

The impact of resuscitation system factors on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes across UK hospitals: An observational study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To explore whether variation in in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) survival can be explained by differences in resuscitation service provision across UK acute hospitals. METHODS: We linked information on key clinical practices with patient data of adults who had a cardiac arrest on a general hospital ward or emergency admissions unit in 2016/17. We used multi-level Bayesian models to explore associations between system quality indicators (number of resuscitation officers, audits time to first shock, review unexpected non-survivors, arrest team meets at handover, hot debrief, cold debrief, real-time audio-visual feedback, frequency of mock arrest provision) and adjusted hospital survival. RESULTS: We received survey responses from 110 out of 180 eligible hospitals (response rate 61%) relating to 12,285 cardiac arrest cases. Variation across trusts was observed in the number of resuscitation officers (median 0.7 (interquartile range 0.5, 0.9) per 750 clinical staff employed. Key system quality indicators were undertaken infrequently: audit of time to first shock (44.7%), arrest team meeting at handover (28.9%), mock arrests ≥ monthly (22.4%), and use of CPR feedback devices (18.4%). The probability that the system quality indicators had a positive effect on hospital survival ranged from 10% to 89%. However, there was uncertainty in the estimated odds ratios and we cannot exclude the possibility of a clinical benefit. Findings were consistent across secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this study, we identified variation in implementation of system quality indicators. Amongst hospitals that responded to our survey, the probability that individual factors increase the odds of hospital survival ranges from 10 to 89%.

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Statistical and health economic analysis plan for the 65 trial in article.

The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (targeting a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial will recruit 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. This paper describes the proposed statistical and health economic analysis for the 65 trial.

Vasopressin in septic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the possible benefits and harms of vasopressin therapy in adults with septic shock both overall and in pre-defined subgroups. METHODS: Our pre-specified study protocol is published on PROSPERO, CRD42017071698. We identified randomised clinical trials up to January 2019 investigating vasopressin therapy versus any other vasoactive comparator in adults with septic shock. Individual patient data from each trial were compiled. Conventional two-stage meta-analyses were performed as well as one-stage regression models with single treatment covariate interactions for subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Four trials were included with a total of 1453 patients. For the primary outcomes, there was no effect of vasopressin on 28-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12] or serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.26). Vasopressin led to more digital ischaemia [absolute risk difference (ARD) 1.7%, 95% CI 0.3%-3.2%] but fewer arrhythmias (ARD - 2.8%, 95% CI - 0.2% to - 5.3%). Mesenteric ischaemia and acute coronary syndrome events were similar between groups. Vasopressin reduced the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99), but this finding was not robust to sensitivity analyses. There were no statistically significant interactions in the pre-defined subgroups (baseline kidney injury severity, baseline lactate, baseline norepinephrine requirement and time to study inclusion). CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin therapy in septic shock had no effect on 28-day mortality although the confidence intervals are wide. It appears safe but with a different side effect profile from norepinephrine. The finding on reduced RRT should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should focus on long-term outcomes in select patient groups as well as incorporating cost effectiveness analyses regarding possible reduced RRT use.

Levosimendan in septic shock in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction: a subgroup analysis of the LeoPARDS randomised trial.

PURPOSE: Myocardial dysfunction is common in sepsis but optimal treatment strategies are unclear. The inodilator, levosimendan was suggested as a possible therapy; however, the levosimendan to prevent acute organ dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial found it to have no benefit in reducing organ dysfunction in septic shock. In this study we evaluated the effects of levosimendan in patients with and without biochemical cardiac dysfunction and examined its non-inotropic effects. METHODS: Two cardiac biomarkers, troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and five inflammatory mediators were measured in plasma from patients recruited to the LeoPARDS trial at baseline and over the first 6 days. Mean total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and 28-day mortality were compared between patients with normal and raised cTnI and NT-proBNP values, and between patients above and below median values. RESULTS: Levosimendan produced no benefit in SOFA score or 28-day mortality in patients with cardiac dysfunction. There was a statistically significant treatment by subgroup interaction (p = 0.04) in patients with NT-proBNP above or below the median value. Those with NT-proBNP values above the median receiving levosimendan had higher SOFA scores than those receiving placebo (mean daily total SOFA score 7.64 (4.41) vs 6.09 (3.88), mean difference 1.55, 95% CI 0.43-2.68). Levosimendan had no effect on the rate of decline of inflammatory biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Adding levosimendan to standard care in septic shock was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction nor lower mortality in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction.