Randomised evaluation of active control of temperature versus ordinary temperature management (REACTOR) trial.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether protocols targeting systematic prevention and treatment of fever achieve lower mean body temperature than usual care in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The objective of the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of temperature vs. ORdinary temperature management trial was to confirm the feasibility of such a protocol with a view to conducting a larger trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 184 adults without acute brain pathologies who had a fever in the previous 12 h, and were expected to be ventilated beyond the calendar day after recruitment, to systematic prevention and treatment of fever or usual care. The primary outcome was mean body temperature in the ICU within 7 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU-free days and survival time censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Compared with usual temperature management, active management significantly reduced mean temperature. In both groups, fever generally abated within 72 h. The mean temperature difference between groups was greatest in the first 48 h, when it was generally in the order of 0.5 °C. Overall, 23 of 89 patients assigned to active management (25.8%) and 23 of 89 patients assigned to usual management (25.8%) died in hospital (odds ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.51-1.96, P = 1.0). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in ICU-free days or survival to day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Active temperature management reduced body temperature compared with usual care; however, fever abated rapidly, even in patients assigned to usual care, and the magnitude of temperature separation was small. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number, ACTRN12616001285448.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial.

BACKGROUND: Body temperature can be reduced in febrile patients in the intensive care unit using medicines and physical cooling devices, but it is not known whether systematically preventing and treating fever reduces body temperature compared with standard care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a phase II, multicentre trial to be conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs admitting adult patients. We will recruit 184 adults without acute brain injury who are expected to be ventilated in the ICU beyond the day after randomisation. We will use open, random, parallel assignment to systematic prevention and treatment of fever, or to standard temperature management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point will be mean body temperature, calculated from body temperatures measured 6-hourly for 7 days (168 hours) or until ICU discharge, whichever is sooner. Secondary end points are ICU-free days, in-hospital and cause-specific mortality (censored at Day 90) and survival time to Day 90 (censored at hospital discharge). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether active temperature control reduces body temperature compared with standard care. It is primarily being conducted to establish whether a phase III trial with a patient-centred end point of Day 90 mortality is justified and feasible.

Continuation of statin therapy in patients with presumed infection: a randomized controlled trial.

RATIONALE: In patients on prior statin therapy who are hospitalized for acute infections, current literature is unclear on whether statins should be continued during their hospitalization. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that continuation of therapy with statins influences the inflammatory response to infection and that cessation may cause an inflammatory rebound. METHODS: Prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of atorvastatin (20 mg) or matched placebo in 150 patients on preexisting statin therapy requiring hospitalization for infection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was progression of sepsis during hospitalization. At baseline, the rate of severe sepsis was 32% in both groups. Compared with baseline, the odds ratio for severe sepsis declined in both groups: 0.43 placebo and 0.5 statins (Day 3) versus 0.14 placebo and 0.12 statins (Day 14). The rate of decline of severe sepsis was similar between the groups (odds ratio 1.17 [0.56-2.47], P = 0.7 Day 3; 0.85 [0.21-3.34], P = 0.8 Day 14). IL-6 and C-reactive protein declined in both groups with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.7 and P = 0.2, respectively). An increase in cholesterol occurred in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Most patients were not critically ill. Hospital mortality was 6.6%, with no difference between the groups (6 [8%] of 75 statin group; 4 [5.3%] of 75 placebo group; P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support a beneficial role of continuing preexisting statin therapy on sepsis and inflammatory parameters. Cessation of established statin therapy was not associated with an inflammatory rebound. Clinical trial registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12605000756628).