Barriers, Solutions, and Opportunities for Adapting Critical Care Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for clinical trials worldwide, threatening premature closure and trial integrity. Every phase of research operations was affected, often requiring modifications to protocol design and implementation. Objectives: To identify the barriers, solutions, and opportunities associated with continuing critical care trials that were interrupted during the pandemic, and to generate suggestions for future trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study performed an explanatory sequential analysis involving a self-administered electronic survey and focus groups of principal investigators (PIs) and project coordinators (PCs) conducting adult and pediatric individual-patient randomized trials of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible trials were actively enrolling patients on March 11, 2020. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Importance ratings of barriers to trial conduct and completion, solutions employed, opportunities arising, and suggested strategies for future trials. Quantitative data examining barriers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data addressing solutions, opportunities, and suggestions were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Integration involved triangulation of data sources and perspectives about 13 trials, synthesized by an interprofessional team incorporating reflexivity and member-checking. Results: A total of 13 trials run by 29 PIs and PCs (100% participation rate) were included. The highest-rated barriers (on a 5-point scale) to ongoing conduct during the pandemic were decisions to pause all clinical research (mean [SD] score, 4.7 [0.8]), focus on COVID-19 studies (mean [SD] score, 4.6 [0.8]), and restricted family presence in hospitals (mean [SD] score, 4.1 [0.8]). Suggestions to enable trial progress and completion included providing scientific leadership, implementing technology for communication and data management, facilitating the informed consent process, adapting the protocol as necessary, fostering site engagement, initiating new sites, streamlining ethics and contract review, and designing nested studies. The pandemic necessitated new funding opportunities to sustain trial enrollment. It increased public awareness of critical illness and the importance of randomized trial evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: While underscoring the vital role of research in society and drawing the scientific community together with a common purpose, the pandemic signaled the need for innovation to ensure the rigor and completion of ongoing trials. Lessons learned to optimize research procedures will help to ensure a vibrant clinical trials enterprise in the future.

Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

The response of Canada's clinical health research ecosystem to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The response of Canada's research community to the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine the country's clinical health research ecosystem. We sought to describe patterns of enrolment across Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded studies on COVID-19. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 studies funded by the CIHR and that enrolled participants from Canadian acute care hospitals between January 2020 and April 2023. We collected information on study-and site-level variables from study leads, site investigators, and public domain sources. We described and evaluated factors associated with cumulative enrolment. RESULTS: We obtained information for 23 out of 26 (88%) eligible CIHR-funded studies (16 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 cohort studies). The 23 studies were managed by 12 Canadian and 3 international coordinating centres. Of 419 Canadian hospitals, 97 (23%) enrolled a total of 28 973 participants - 3876 in RCTs across 78 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 30, interquartile range [IQR] 10-61), and 25 097 in cohort studies across 62 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 158, IQR 6-348). Of 78 hospitals recruiting participants in RCTs, 13 (17%) enrolled 50% of all RCT participants, whereas 6 of 62 hospitals (9.7%) recruited 54% of participants in cohort studies. INTERPRETATION: A minority of Canadian hospitals enrolled the majority of participants in CIHR-funded studies on COVID-19. This analysis sheds light on the Canadian health research ecosystem and provides information for multiple key partners to consider ways to realize the full research potential of Canada's health systems.

Calcineurin Inhibitor in NEuRoloGically deceased donors to decrease kidney delayed graft function study: study protocol of the CINERGY Pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Most solid organ transplants originate from donors meeting criteria for death by neurological criteria (DNC). Within the organ donor, physiological responses to brain death increase the risk of ischaemia reperfusion injury and delayed graft function. Donor preconditioning with calcineurin inhibition may reduce this risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We designed a multicentre placebo-controlled pilot randomised trial involving nine organ donation hospitals and all 28 transplant programmes in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec. We planned to enrol 90 DNC donors and their approximately 324 organ recipients, totalling 414 participants. Donors receive an intravenous infusion of either tacrolimus 0.02 mg/kg over 4 hours prior to organ retrieval, or a matching placebo, while monitored in an intensive care unit for any haemodynamic changes during the infusion. Among all study organ recipients, we record measures of graft function for the first 7 days in hospital and we will record graft survival after 1 year. We examine the feasibility of this trial with respect to the proportion of all eligible donors enrolled and the proportion of all eligible transplant recipients consenting to receive a CINERGY organ transplant and to allow the use of their health data for study purposes. We will report these feasibility outcomes as proportions with 95% CIs. We also record any barriers encountered in the launch and in the implementation of this trial with detailed source documentation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will disseminate trial results through publications and presentations at participating sites and conferences. This study has been approved by Health Canada (HC6-24-c241083) and by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating sites and in Québec (MP-31-2020-3348) and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project #3309). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05148715.

Early In-Bed Cycle Ergometry in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness requiring invasive mechanical ventilation can precipitate important functional disability, contributing to multidimensional morbidity following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). Early in-bed cycle ergometry added to usual physiotherapy may mitigate ICU-acquired physical function impairment. METHODS: We randomly assigned 360 adult ICU patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation to receive 30 minutes of early in-bed Cycling + Usual physiotherapy (n=178) or Usual physiotherapy alone (n=182). The primary outcome was the Physical Function ICU Test-scored (PFIT-s) at 3 days after discharge from the ICU (the score ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating better function). RESULTS: Cycling began within a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1 to 3) days of starting mechanical ventilation; patients received 3 (2 to 5) cycling sessions for a mean (±standard deviation) of 27.2 ± 6.6 minutes. In both groups, patients started Usual physiotherapy within 2 (2 to 4) days of mechanical ventilation and received 4 (2 to 7) Usual physiotherapy sessions. The duration of Usual physiotherapy was 23.7 ± 15.1 minutes in the Cycling + Usual physiotherapy group and 29.1 ± 13.2 minutes in the Usual physiotherapy group. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Among survivors, the PFIT-s at 3 days after discharge from the ICU was 7.7 ± 1.7 in the Cycling + Usual physiotherapy group and 7.5 ± 1.7 in the Usual physiotherapy group (absolute difference, 0.23 points; 95% confidence interval, -0.19 to 0.65; P=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU, adding early in-bed Cycling to usual physiotherapy did not improve physical function at 3 days after discharge from the ICU compared with Usual physiotherapy alone. Cycling did not cause any serious adverse events. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03471247 [full randomized clinical trial] and NCT02377830 [CYCLE Vanguard 46-patient internal pilot].).

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

Methylene Blue in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of MB administration in patients with septic shock. DATA SOURCES: We searched six databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Medline) from inception to January 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults comparing MB with placebo or usual care without MB administration. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and data extraction. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included six RCTs (302 patients). Compared with placebo or no MB administration, MB may reduce short-term mortality (RR [risk ratio] 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.94], low certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference [MD] -2.1 d [95% CI, -1.4 to -2.8], low certainty). MB may also reduce duration of vasopressors (MD -31.1 hr [95% CI, -16.5 to -45.6], low certainty), and increase mean arterial pressure at 6 hours (MD 10.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 6.1-14.2], low certainty) compared with no MB administration. The effect of MB on serum methemoglobin concentration was uncertain (MD 0.9% [95% CI, -0.2% to 2.0%], very low certainty). We did not find any differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults with septic shock, based on low-certainty evidence, MB may reduce short-term mortality, duration of vasopressors, and hospital length of stay, with no evidence of increased adverse events. Rigorous randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of MB in septic shock are needed. REGISTRATION: Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hpy4j).

Barriers to participation in biosampling-based translational research: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian critical care researchers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Collection of biosamples for translational research studies is vital for understanding biological pathways, discovering disease-related biomarkers, and identifying novel therapeutic targets. However, a lack of infrastructure for sample procurement, processing, storage, and shipping may hinder the ability of clinical research units to effectively engage in translational research. The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers to biosampling-based translational research in the critical care setting in Canada. METHODS: We administered an online survey to members of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (CCCTG), the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group (CCCTBG), and the Canadian Critical Care Research Coordinators Group (CCCRCG). The survey focused on participants' personal experience of biosampling research, research infrastructure, motivating factors, and perceived barriers. RESULTS: We received 59 responses from 31 sites, including 6 community intensive care unit (ICU) sites. The overall response rate was 11.3%. The majority of respondents were research coordinators (44%), followed by clinician-investigators (33.8%), graduate students (10.2%), and PhD-investigators (8.5%). Although most (63.8%) respondents reported an interest in participating in translational research, they also reported that their ICUs were currently contributing to a third of the number of translational studies compared to clinical studies. For respondents with experience in participating in translational research studies, the most common barriers were lack of funding, lack of time, and insufficient research staff. For respondents without previous experience, the perceived facilitators were more interest from their research group, improved training/mentorship, increased funding, and better access to laboratory equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey found that the majority of participants were interested in and recognize the value of participating in biosampling-based translational research but lacked funding, time, and research personnel trained in biosampling protocols. Our survey also identified factors that might encourage participation at new sites. Addressing these barriers will be a key step towards increasing translational research capacity across Canada.

Using a targeted metabolomics approach to explore differences in ARDS associated with COVID-19 compared to ARDS caused by H1N1 influenza and bacterial pneumonia.

RATIONALE: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening critical care syndrome commonly associated with infections such as COVID-19, influenza, and bacterial pneumonia. Ongoing research aims to improve our understanding of ARDS, including its molecular mechanisms, individualized treatment options, and potential interventions to reduce inflammation and promote lung repair. OBJECTIVE: To map and compare metabolic phenotypes of different infectious causes of ARDS to better understand the metabolic pathways involved in the underlying pathogenesis. METHODS: We analyzed metabolic phenotypes of 3 ARDS cohorts caused by COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and bacterial pneumonia compared to non-ARDS COVID-19-infected patients and ICU-ventilated controls. Targeted metabolomics was performed on plasma samples from a total of 150 patients using quantitative LC-MS/MS and DI-MS/MS analytical platforms. RESULTS: Distinct metabolic phenotypes were detected between different infectious causes of ARDS. There were metabolomics differences between ARDSs associated with COVID-19 and H1N1, which include metabolic pathways involving taurine and hypotaurine, pyruvate, TCA cycle metabolites, lysine, and glycerophospholipids. ARDSs associated with bacterial pneumonia and COVID-19 differed in the metabolism of D-glutamine and D-glutamate, arginine, proline, histidine, and pyruvate. The metabolic profile of COVID-19 ARDS (C19/A) patients admitted to the ICU differed from COVID-19 pneumonia (C19/P) patients who were not admitted to the ICU in metabolisms of phenylalanine, tryptophan, lysine, and tyrosine. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences between C19/A, H1N1/A, and PNA/A vs ICU-ventilated controls, reflecting potentially different disease mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Different metabolic phenotypes characterize ARDS associated with different viral and bacterial infections.

Rethinking the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials and observational studies in the era of big data and advanced methods: a panel discussion.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been considered the gold standard for medical evidence. However, in light of emerging methodologies in data science, many experts question the role of RCTs. Within this context, experts in the USA and Canada came together to debate whether the primacy of RCTs as the gold standard for medical evidence, still holds in light of recent methodological advances in data science and in the era of big data. The purpose of this manuscript, aims to raise awareness of the pros and cons of RCTs and observational studies in order to help guide clinicians, researchers, students, and decision-makers in making informed decisions on the quality of medical evidence to support their work. In particular, new and underappreciated advantages and disadvantages of both designs are contrasted. Innovations taking place in both of these research methodologies, which can blur the lines between the two, are also discussed. Finally, practical guidance for clinicians and future directions in assessing the quality of evidence is offered.

Proteomic Evolution from Acute to Post-COVID-19 Conditions.

Many COVID-19 survivors have post-COVID-19 conditions, and females are at a higher risk. We sought to determine (1) how protein levels change from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, (2) whether females have a plasma protein signature different from that of males, and (3) which biological pathways are associated with COVID-19 when compared to restrictive lung disease. We measured protein levels in 74 patients on the day of admission and at 3 and 6 months after diagnosis. We determined protein concentrations by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) using a panel of 269 heavy-labeled peptides. The predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were measured by routine pulmonary function testing. Proteins associated with six key lipid-related pathways increased from admission to 3 and 6 months; conversely, proteins related to innate immune responses and vasoconstriction-related proteins decreased. Multiple biological functions were regulated differentially between females and males. Concentrations of eight proteins were associated with FVC, %, and they together had c-statistics of 0.751 (CI:0.732-0.779); similarly, concentrations of five proteins had c-statistics of 0.707 (CI:0.676-0.737) for DLCO, %. Lipid biology may drive evolution from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, while activation of innate immunity and vascular regulation pathways decreased over that period. (ProteomeXchange identifiers: PXD041762, PXD029437).

An Update on Management of Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four "PICO questions" (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.

CODA: an open-source platform for federated analysis and machine learning on distributed healthcare data.

OBJECTIVES: Distributed computations facilitate multi-institutional data analysis while avoiding the costs and complexity of data pooling. Existing approaches lack crucial features, such as built-in medical standards and terminologies, no-code data visualizations, explicit disclosure control mechanisms, and support for basic statistical computations, in addition to gradient-based optimization capabilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the development of the Collaborative Data Analysis (CODA) platform, and the design choices undertaken to address the key needs identified during our survey of stakeholders. We use a public dataset (MIMIC-IV) to demonstrate end-to-end multi-modal FL using CODA. We assessed the technical feasibility of deploying the CODA platform at 9 hospitals in Canada, describe implementation challenges, and evaluate its scalability on large patient populations. RESULTS: The CODA platform was designed, developed, and deployed between January 2020 and January 2023. Software code, documentation, and technical documents were released under an open-source license. Multi-modal federated averaging is illustrated using the MIMIC-IV and MIMIC-CXR datasets. To date, 8 out of the 9 participating sites have successfully deployed the platform, with a total enrolment of >1M patients. Mapping data from legacy systems to FHIR was the biggest barrier to implementation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The CODA platform was developed and successfully deployed in a public healthcare setting in Canada, with heterogeneous information technology systems and capabilities. Ongoing efforts will use the platform to develop and prospectively validate models for risk assessment, proactive monitoring, and resource usage. Further work will also make tools available to facilitate migration from legacy formats to FHIR and DICOM.

A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit: The Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C-India (LOVIT-India) Trial.

Background: The burden of sepsis is high in India and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Vitamin C, an endogenous antioxidant, may improve patient outcomes. Methods: This was a parallel-group pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 intensive care units in India. Adult patients (≥18 years) with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and needing a continuous intravenous vasopressor infusion were randomized to intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 hours for a maximum of 16 doses) or matching placebo. Primary outcomes were related to protocol adherence and feasibility (enrollment per month). The key secondary outcome was the composite of mortality or persistent organ dysfunction (POD) at day 28 after randomization. Results: 60 patients were screened, 51 were eligible, 32 were randomized, and 30 were included in the analysis (randomized/eligible ratio: 0.63). The overall rate of enrollment was 1.5 patients per month. The median (IQR) age was 63.5 (51.0, 70.0) and 70.0% of the patients were male. In both arms, all patients received ≥90% of scheduled doses of the study drug. No patient received open-label vitamin C and there were no deviations from the glucose monitoring protocol. The composite outcome of mortality or POD at day 28 occurred in 56.3% (9/16) in the vitamin C arm as compared to 42.9% (6/14) in the placebo arm [RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 0.62, 2.76), p = 0.47]. Conclusion: In this pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of vitamin C for adult patients with sepsis, protocol adherence was excellent and feasibility endpoints were met. Trial registration: CTRI/2020/03/024371. How to cite this article: Vijayaraghavan BKT, Venkataraman R, Ramanathan Y, Margabandhu S, Jayakumar D, Ramachandran P, et al. A Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit: The Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C-India (LOVIT-India) Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(12):910-916.

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.

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.).