Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidelines for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited, and uncertainty about its effectiveness remains. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial with an integrated cost-effectiveness analysis in 56 hospitals in England. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either EGDT (a 6-hour resuscitation protocol) or usual care. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 1260 patients, with 630 assigned to EGDT and 630 to usual care. By 90 days, 184 of 623 patients (29.5%) in the EGDT group and 181 of 620 patients (29.2%) in the usual-care group had died (relative risk in the EGDT group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.20; P=0.90), for an absolute risk reduction in the EGDT group of -0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.7). Increased treatment intensity in the EGDT group was indicated by increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs, and red-cell transfusions and reflected by significantly worse organ-failure scores, more days receiving advanced cardiovascular support, and longer stays in the intensive care unit. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or in rates of serious adverse events. On average, EGDT increased costs, and the probability that it was cost-effective was below 20%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock who were identified early and received intravenous antibiotics and adequate fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic management according to a strict EGDT protocol did not lead to an improvement in outcome. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ProMISe Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN36307479.).

Atopic Dermatitis Anti-IgE Paediatric Trial (ADAPT): the role of anti-IgE in severe paediatric eczema: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for systemic treatments for severe childhood eczema is limited and largely based on extrapolation of data from adult studies. Current therapies are often immunosuppressant and may be associated with both short- and long-term side effects. There is increasing in vitro and murine-model evidence for the role of IgE in the immunopathogenesis of atopic eczema. The aim of the study is to assess whether anti-IgE treatment (omalizumab) improves eczema, compared to placebo. METHODS/DESIGN: The Atopic Dermatitis Anti-IgE Paediatric Trial (ADAPT) is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the role of anti-IgE in the management of severe paediatric eczema. Children with severe atopic eczema, with an objective SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score of over 40 will be recruited. These children are candidates for systemic therapy, have failed systemic therapy or have experienced side effects from systemic therapy. Sixty-two patients aged between 4 and 19 years will receive anti-IgE for 6 months. The primary outcome measure will be the validated eczema score, the objective SCORAD at 24 weeks. This study has 90% power to detect a 33% relative reduction in SCORAD between active and placebo groups, with 5% significance. DISCUSSION: IgE may have a role to play in eczema, particularly in childhood. This forms the basis for the hypothesis that anti-IgE may be an effective treatment in this patient population. This will be the largest study to evaluate the efficacy of anti-IgE (omalizumab) versus placebo in children with severe eczema. The findings will help to clarify the role of anti-IgE as a potential treatment option in patients with severe childhood eczema. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) Number: 2010-020841-29 . Assigned on 14 May 2010. ISRCTN Registry, Identifier: ISRCTN15090567 . Retrospectively assigned on 3 December 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02300701 . First received 21 November 2014.

Validation of a classification system for causes of death in critical care: an assessment of inter-rater reliability.

OBJECTIVE: Trials in critical care have previously used unvalidated systems to classify cause of death. We aimed to provide initial validation of a method to classify cause of death in intensive care unit patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred case scenarios of patients who died in an ICU were presented online to raters, who were asked to select a proximate and an underlying cause of death for each, using the ICU Deaths Classification and Reason (ICU-DECLARE) system. We evaluated two methods of categorising proximate cause of death (designated Lists A and B) and one method of categorising underlying cause of death. Raters were ICU specialists and research coordinators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability, as measured by the Fleiss multirater kappa, and the median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis (defined as the most popular classification choice in each case). RESULTS: Across all raters and cases, for proximate cause of death List A, kappa was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.49-0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.53). The median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List A, was 77.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0%-93.8%), and the median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List B, was 82.5% (IQR, 60.0%-92.5%). The median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for underlying cause was 65.0% (IQR, 50.0%-81.3%). Kappa and median agreement were similar between countries. ICU specialists showed higher kappa and median agreement than research coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU-DECLARE system allowed ICU doctors to classify the proximate cause of death of patients who died in the ICU with substantial reliability.

Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe): a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidance for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited and uncertainty remains over its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to estimate the effect of EGDT compared with usual resuscitation on mortality at 90 days following randomisation and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. The secondary objectives were to compare EGDT with usual resuscitation for requirement for, and duration of, critical care unit organ support; length of stay in the emergency department (ED), critical care unit and acute hospital; health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and at 1 year; all-cause mortality at 28 days, at acute hospital discharge and at 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Fifty-six NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1260 patients who presented at EDs with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: EGDT (n = 630) or usual resuscitation (n = 630). Patients were randomly allocated 1 : 1. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS: Following withdrawals, data on 1243 (EGDT, n = 623; usual resuscitation, n = 620) patients were included in the analysis. By 90 days, 184 (29.5%) in the EGDT and 181 (29.2%) patients in the usual-resuscitation group had died [p = 0.90; absolute risk reduction -0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.4 to 4.7; relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20]. Treatment intensity was greater for the EGDT group, indicated by the increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs and red blood cell transfusions. Increased treatment intensity was reflected by significantly higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and more advanced cardiovascular support days in critical care for the EGDT group. At 1 year, the incremental net benefit for EGDT versus usual resuscitation was negative at -£725 (95% CI -£3000 to £1550). The probability that EGDT was more cost-effective than usual resuscitation was below 30%. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or adverse events. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment was lower at weekends and out of hours. The intervention could not be blinded. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 90 days for EGDT compared with usual resuscitation among adults identified with early septic shock presenting to EDs in England. On average, costs were higher in the EGDT group than in the usual-resuscitation group while quality-adjusted life-years were similar in both groups; the probability that it is cost-effective is < 30%. FUTURE WORK: The ProMISe (Protocolised Management In Sepsis) trial completes the planned trio of evaluations of EGDT across the USA, Australasia and England; all have indicated that EGDT is not superior to usual resuscitation. Recognising that each of the three individual, large trials has limited power for evaluating potentially important subgroups, the harmonised approach adopted provides the opportunity to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis, enhancing both knowledge and generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36307479. 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. 19, No. 97. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.