Conservative or liberal oxygen targets in patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

PURPOSE: Patients receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) frequently develop arterial hyperoxaemia, which may be harmful. However, lower oxygen saturation targets may also lead to harmful episodes of hypoxaemia. METHODS: In this registry-embedded, multicentre trial, we randomly assigned adult patients receiving VA-ECMO in an intensive care unit (ICU) to either a conservative (target SaO2 92-96%) or to a liberal oxygen strategy (target SaO2 97-100%) through controlled oxygen administration via the ventilator and ECMO gas blender. The primary outcome was the number of ICU-free days to day 28. Secondary outcomes included ICU-free days to day 60, mortality, ECMO and ventilation duration, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and functional outcomes at 6 months. RESULTS: From September 2019 through June 2023, 934 patients who received VA-ECMO were reported to the EXCEL registry, of whom 300 (192 cardiogenic shock, 108 refractory cardiac arrest) were recruited. We randomised 149 to a conservative and 151 to a liberal oxygen strategy. The median number of ICU-free days to day 28 was similar in both groups (conservative: 0 days [interquartile range (IQR) 0-13.7] versus liberal: 0 days [IQR 0-13.7], median treatment effect: 0 days [95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.1 to 3.1]). Mortality at day 28 (59/159 [39.6%] vs 59/151 [39.1%]) and at day 60 (64/149 [43%] vs 62/151 [41.1%] were similar in conservative and liberal groups, as were all other secondary outcomes and adverse events. The conservative group experienced 44 (29.5%) major protocol deviations compared to 2 (1.3%) in the liberal oxygen group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In adults receiving VA-ECMO in ICU, a conservative compared to a liberal oxygen strategy, did not affect the number of ICU-free days to day 28.

Costs of Australian intensive care: A systematic review.

Objective: Intensive care unit (ICU) cost estimates are critical to achieving healthcare system efficiency and sustainability. We aimed to review the published literature describing ICU costs in Australia. Design: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the cost of ICU care in Australia. Studies conducted in specific patient cohorts or on specific treatments were excluded. Data sources: Relevant studies were sourced from a previously published review (1970-2016), a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2016-5 May 2023), and reference checking. Review methods: A tool was developed to assess study quality and risk of bias (maximum score 57/57). Total and component costs were tabulated and indexed to 2022 Australian Dollars. Costing methodologies and study quality assessments were summarised. Results: Six costing studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality scores were low (15/41 to 35/47). Most studies were conducted only in tertiary metropolitan public ICUs; sample sizes ranged from 100 to 10,204 patients. One study used data collected within the past 10 years. Mean daily ICU costs ranged from $966 to $5381 and mean total ICU admission costs $4888 to $14,606. Three studies used a top-down costing approach, deriving cost estimates from budget reports. The other three studies used both bottom-up and top-down costing approaches. Bottom-up approaches collected individual patient resource use. Conclusions: Available ICU cost estimates are largely outdated and lack granular data. Future research is needed to estimate ICU costs that better reflect current practice and patient complexity and to determine the best methods for generating these estimates.

Actual Cost of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the actual cost and drivers of the cost of an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) care cycle. PERSPECTIVE: A time-driven activity-based costing study conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. SETTING: A quaternary care ICU providing around-the-clock E-CPR service for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in Australia. METHODS: The E-CPR care cycle was defined as the time from initiating E-CPR to hospital discharge or death of the patient. Detailed process maps with discrete steps and probabilistic decision nodes accounting for the complex trajectories of E-CPR patients were developed. Data about clinical and nonclinical resources and timing of activities was collected multiple times for each process . Total direct costs were calculated using the time estimates and unit costs per resource for all clinical and nonclinical resources. The total direct costs were combined with indirect costs to obtain the total cost of E-CPR. RESULTS: From 10 E-CPR care cycles observed during the study period, a minimum of 3 observations were obtained per process. The E-CPR care cycle's mean (95% CI) cost was $75,014 ($66,209-83,222). Initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ECMO management constituted 18% of costs. The ICU management (35%) and surgical costs (20%) were the primary cost determinants. IHCA had a higher mean (95% CI) cost than OHCA ($87,940 [75,372-100,570] vs. 62,595 [53,994-71,890], p < 0.01), mainly because of the increased survival and ICU length of stay of patients with IHCA. The mean cost for each E-CPR survivor was $129,503 ($112,422-147,224). CONCLUSIONS: Significant costs are associated with E-CPR for refractory cardiac arrest. The cost of E-CPR for IHCA was higher compared with the cost of E-CPR for OHCA. The major determinants of the E-CPR costs were ICU and surgical costs. These data can inform the cost-effectiveness analysis of E-CPR in the future.

Heparin Dose Intensity and Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Background: Clinical trials suggest that therapeutic-dose heparin may prevent critical illness and vascular complications due to COVID-19, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the efficacy of therapeutic heparin including its comparative effect relative to intermediate-dose anticoagulation. Objectives: The authors performed 2 complementary secondary analyses of a completed randomized clinical trial: 1) a prespecified per-protocol analysis; and 2) an exploratory dose-based analysis to compare the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin with low- and intermediate-dose heparin. Methods: Patients who received initial anticoagulation dosed consistently with randomization were included. The primary outcome was organ support-free days (OSFDs), a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support through day 21. Results: Among 2,860 participants, 1,761 (92.8%) noncritically ill and 857 (89.1%) critically ill patients were treated per-protocol. Among noncritically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic-dose heparin improved OSFDs as compared with usual care was 99.3% (median adjusted OR: 1.36; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.07-1.74). Therapeutic heparin had a high posterior probability of efficacy relative to both low- (94.6%; adjusted OR: 1.26; 95% CrI: 0.95-1.64) and intermediate- (99.8%; adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CrI: 1.22-2.62) dose thromboprophylaxis. Among critically ill per-protocol patients, the posterior probability that therapeutic heparin improved outcomes was low. Conclusions: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were randomized to and initially received therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, heparin, compared with usual care, was associated with improved OSFDs, a combination of in-hospital death and days free of organ support. Therapeutic heparin appeared superior to both low- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis.

Impact of High-Dose Early Mobilization on Outcomes for Patients with Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the TEAM Trial.

Rationale: Patients with diabetes represent almost 20% of all ICU admissions and might respond differently to high-dose early active mobilization. Objectives: To assess whether diabetes modified the relationship between the dose of early mobilization on clinical outcomes in the TEAM trial. Methods: All TEAM trial patients were included. The primary outcome was days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180. Secondary outcomes included 180-day mortality and long-term functional outcomes at Day 180. Logistic and median regression models were used to explore the effect of high-dose early mobilization on outcomes by diabetes status. Measurements and Main Results: All 741 patients from the original trial were included. Of these, 159 patients (21.4%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes had fewer days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180 (124 [0-153] vs. 147 [82-164]; P = 0.013) and higher 180-day mortality (30% vs. 18%; P = 0.044). In patients receiving high-dose early mobilization, the number of days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180 was 73.0 (0.0-144.5) in patients with diabetes and 146.5 (95.8-163.0) in patients without diabetes (P value for interaction = 0.108). However, in patients with diabetes, high-dose early mobilization increased the odds of mortality at 180 days (adjusted odds ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-7.61; P value for interaction = 0.001). Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of the TEAM trial, in patients with diabetes, a high-dose early mobilization strategy did not significantly decrease the number of days alive and out of the hospital at Day 180, but it increased 180-day mortality.

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with hematological malignancies are likely to develop hypogammaglobulinemia. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is commonly given to prevent infections, but its overall costs and cost-effectiveness are unknown. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to assess the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig, administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg), in adults with hematological malignancies. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, and only two economic evaluations were identified; one cost-utility analysis (CUA) of IVIg versus no Ig, and another comparing IVIg with SCIg. The quality of the evidence was low. Compared to no treatment, Ig reduced hospitalization rates. One study reported no significant change in hospitalizations following a program to reduce IVIg use, and an observational study comparing IVIg with SCIg suggested that there were more hospitalizations with SCIg but lower overall costs per patient. The CUA comparing IVIg versus no Ig suggested that IVIg treatment was not cost-effective, and the other CUA comparing IVIg to SCIg found that home-based SCIg was more cost-effective than IVIg, but both studies had serious limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlighted key gaps in the literature: the cost-effectiveness of Ig in patients with hematological malignancies is very uncertain. Despite increasing Ig use worldwide, there are limited data regarding the total direct and indirect costs of treatment, and the optimal use of Ig and downstream implications for healthcare resource use and costs remain unclear. Given the paucity of evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig treatment in this population, further health economic research is warranted.

Corrigendum to "Blend to Limit OxygEN in ECMO: A RanDomised ControllEd Registry (BLENDER) trial: Study protocol and statistical analysis plan" [Crit Care Resuscit 25 (2023) 118-125].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.ccrj.2023.06.001.].

Economic evaluation: immunoglobulin vs prophylactic antibiotics in hypogammaglobulinemia and hematological malignancies.

ABSTRACT: Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of developing hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) and infections. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is one recommended option to prevent these infections, but it is expensive, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other prevention strategies remains unknown. We conducted a trial-based economic evaluation from the Australian health care system perspective to estimate the 12-month cost-effectiveness of prophylactic Ig vs prophylactic antibiotics in 63 adults with HGG and hematological malignancies participating in the RATIONAL feasibility trial. Two analyses were conducted: (1) cost-utility analysis to assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the incremental cost per serious infection prevented (grade ≥3) and per any infection (any grade) prevented. Over 12 months, the total cost per patient was significantly higher in the Ig group than in the antibiotic group (mean difference, AU$29 140; P < .001). Most patients received IVIg, which was the main cost driver; only 2 patients in the intervention arm received subcutaneous Ig. There were nonsignificant differences in health outcomes. Results showed Ig was more costly than antibiotics and associated with fewer QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Ig vs antibiotics was AU$111 262 per serious infection prevented, but Ig was more costly and associated with more infections when all infections were included. On average and for this patient population, Ig prophylaxis may not be cost-effective compared with prophylactic antibiotics. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population and considering longer-term outcomes. The trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as #ACTRN12616001723471.

Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized implementation trials in clinical settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations alongside implementation trials compare the outcomes and costs of competing implementation strategies to identify the most efficient strategies. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate how economic evaluations are performed in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings and to assess the quality of these evaluations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on 23 March 2023 to identify studies that reported on economic evaluations embedded in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings. A systematic search was applied across seven databases, and references of relevant reviews were screened for additional studies. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of included economic evaluations. Study characteristics and quality assessments were tabulated and described. RESULTS: Of the 6,550 studies screened for eligibility, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2022 and from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Africa. Most studies were conducted in the primary and out-patient care setting. Implementation costs included materials, staffing, and training, and the most common approach to collecting implementation costs was obtaining expense and budget reports. Included studies scored medium to high in terms of economic methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evidence is particularly useful for healthcare funders and service providers to inform the prioritization of implementation efforts in the context of limited resources and competing demands. The relatively small number of studies identified may be due to lack of guidance on how to conduct economic evaluations alongside implementation trials and the lack of standardized terminology used to describe implementation strategies in clinical research. We discuss these methodological gaps and present recommendations for embedding economic evaluations in implementation trials. First, reporting implementation strategies used in clinical trials and aligning these strategies with implementation outcomes and costs are an important advancement in clinical research. Second, economic evaluations of implementation trials should follow guidelines for standard clinical trial economic evaluations and adopt an appropriate costing and data collection approach. Third, hybrid trial designs are recommended to generate evidence for effective and cost-effective implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023410186).

Association Between Early External Ventricular Drain Insertion and Functional Outcomes 6 Months Following Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality. Intracranial hypertension following moderate-to-severe TBI (m-sTBI) is a potentially modifiable secondary cerebral insult and one of the central therapeutic targets of contemporary neurocritical care. External ventricular drain (EVD) insertion is a common therapeutic intervention used to control intracranial hypertension and attenuate secondary brain injury. However, the optimal timing of EVD insertion in the setting of m-sTBI is uncertain and practice variation is widespread. Therefore, we aimed to assess if there is an association between timing of EVD placement and functional neurological outcome at 6 months post m-sTBI. We pooled individual patient data for all relevant harmonizable variables from the Erythropoietin in Traumatic Brain Injury (EPO-TBI) and Prophylactic Hypothermia Trial to Lessen Traumatic Brain Injury (POLAR) randomized control trials, and the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (CENTER-TBI) Core Study version 3.0 and Australia-Europe NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI (Oz-ENTER) prospective observational studies to create a combined dataset. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was used to define TBI severity and we included all patients admitted to an intensive care unit with a GCS ≤12, who were 15 years or older and underwent EVD placement within 7 days of injury. We used hierarchical multi-variable logistic regression models to study the association between EVD insertion within 24 h of injury (early) compared with EVD insertion more than 24 h after injury (late) and 6-month functional neurological outcome measured using the Glasgow Outcome Score Extended (GOSE). In total, 2536 patients were assessed. Of these, 502 (20%) underwent early EVD insertion and 145 (6%) underwent late EVD insertion. Following adjustment for the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI) score extended (Core + CT), sex, injury severity score, study and treatment site, patients receiving a late EVD had higher odds of death or severe disability (GOSE 1-4) at 6 months follow-up than those receiving an early EVD adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence interval, 2.14; 1.22-3.76; p = 0.008. Our study suggests that in patients with m-sTBI where an EVD is needed, early (≤ 24 h post-injury) insertion may result in better long-term functional outcomes. This finding supports future prospective investigation in this area.

How environmental impact is considered in economic evaluations of critical care: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Health care is a major contributor to climate change, and critical care is one of the sector's highest carbon emitters. Health economic evaluations form an important component of critical care and may be useful in identifying economically efficient and environmentally sustainable strategies. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise available literature on whether and how environmental impact is considered in health economic evaluations of critical care. METHODS: A robust scoping review methodology was used to identify studies reporting on environmental impact in health economic evaluations of critical care. We searched six academic databases to locate health economic evaluations, costing studies and life cycle assessments of critical care from 1993 to present. RESULTS: Four studies met the review's inclusion criteria. Of the 278 health economic evaluations of critical care identified, none incorporated environmental impact into their assessments. Most included studies (n = 3/4) were life cycle assessments, and the remaining study was a prospective observational study. Life cycle assessments used a combination of process-based data collection and modelling to incorporate environmental impact into their economic assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Health economic evaluations of critical care have not yet incorporated environmental impact into their assessments, and few life cycle assessments exist that are specific to critical care therapies and treatments. Guidelines and standardisation regarding environmental data collection and reporting in health care are needed to support further research in the field. In the meantime, those planning health economic evaluations should include a process-based life cycle assessment to establish key environmental impacts specific to critical care.

Efficacy and safety of avatrombopag in combination with immunosuppressive therapy in treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory severe aplastic anaemia: protocol for the DIAAMOND-Ava-FIRST and DIAAMOND-Ava-NEXT Bayesian Optimal Phase II trials.

INTRODUCTION: Immunosuppressive therapy (IST) with antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and ciclosporin is standard of care for patients with severe aplastic anaemia (sAA) not eligible or suitable for allogeneic stem cell transplant. While patients respond to IST, few achieve complete responses and a significant proportion are refractory or relapse. The addition of eltrombopag, a thrombopoietin-receptor agonist (TPO-A), to IST has been shown to improve haematological responses in sAA. Avatrombopag is a second-generation TPO-A with potential advantages over eltrombopag. However, to date avatrombopag has not been studied in sAA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Investigator-initiated, single-arm registry-based Bayesian Optimal Phase II trial of avatrombopag conducted in two cohorts, patients with untreated sAA (FIRST cohort) and in patients with sAA that has relapsed or is refractory to IST (NEXT cohort). In the FIRST cohort, participants receive IST (equine ATG and ciclosporin) plus avatrombopag from day 1 until day 180 at 60 mg oral daily, with dose adjusted according to platelet count. Participants in the NEXT cohort receive avatrombopag at 60 mg oral daily from day 1 until day 180, with or without additional IST at the discretion of the treating clinician.For each cohort, two primary endpoints (haematological response and acquired clonal evolution) are jointly monitored and the trial reviewed at each interim analysis where a 'go/no-go' decision is made by evaluating the posterior probability of the events of interests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has received ethics approval (Monash Health RES-18-0000707A). The trial conduct will comply with ICH-GCP and all applicable regulatory requirements. The results of the trial will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001042134, ACTRN12619001043123.

Psychometric properties of health-related quality of life instruments used in survivors of critical illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a patient-reported measure of health status. However, research on the psychometric properties of HRQoL instruments used post-critical care is less common. We conducted a systematic review assessing the psychometric properties of HRQoL instruments used in adult survivors following critical illness. METHODS: Three databases were systematically searched between 1990 and June 2022. Screening articles for eligibility, we selected either development studies for new tools or studies that evaluated psychometric properties, and whose target population represented adult survivors following critical illness. Methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-Based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The results of each psychometric property were then assessed for criteria of good psychometric properties (sufficient, insufficient or indeterminate) and qualitatively summarised. Finally, we graded the quality of the evidence using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 13 eligible studies from 2,983 records identifying 10 HRQoL instruments used post-critical illness. While high-quality evidence for the considered PROMs was limited primarily due to risk of bias, seven instruments demonstrated sufficient levels of reliability, four instruments presented sufficient hypothesis testing, and two instruments showed sufficient responsiveness. Except the Short Form-36, evidence for psychometric properties of other individual measures was limited to a few studies. CONCLUSION: There was limited evidence demonstrated for the psychometric properties of the included PROMs evaluating HRQoL. Further research is warranted to evaluate the psychometric properties of HRQoL measures, strengthening the evidence for administering these instruments in survivors following critical illness.

Sex Differences in Vital Organ Support Provided to ICU Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Critically ill women may receive less vital organ support than men but the mortality impact of this differential treatment remains unclear. We aimed to quantify sex differences in vital organ support provided to adult ICU patients and describe the relationship between sex, vital organ support, and mortality. DESIGN: In this retrospective observational study, we examined the provision of invasive ventilation (primary outcome), noninvasive ventilation, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or any one of these five vital organ supports in women compared with men. We performed logistic regression investigating the association of sex with each vital organ support, adjusted for illness severity, diagnosis, preexisting treatment limitation, year, and hospital. We performed logistic regression for hospital mortality adjusted for the same variables, stratified by vital organ support (secondary outcome). SETTING AND PATIENTS: ICU admissions in the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database 2018-2021. This registry records admissions from 90% of ICUs in the two nations. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We examined 699,535 ICU admissions (43.7% women) to 199 ICUs. After adjustment, women were less likely than men to receive invasive ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 99% CI, 0.63-0.65) and each other organ support except ECMO. Women had lower adjusted hospital mortality overall (OR, 0.94; 99% CI, 0.91-0.97). Among patients who did not receive any organ support, women had significantly lower adjusted hospital mortality (OR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.76-0.88); among patients who received any organ support women and men were equally likely to die (OR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.97-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women received significantly less vital organ support than men in ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. However, our findings suggest that women may not be harmed by this conservative approach to treatment.

Epidemiology of Intensive Care Patients Classified as a Third Sex in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Patient sex affects treatment and outcomes in critical illness. Previous studies of sex differences in critical illness compared female and male patients. In this study, we describe the group of patients classified as a third sex admitted to ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the admission characteristics and outcomes of ICU patients classified as belonging to a third sex group compared with patients classified as female or male? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of admissions to 200 ICUs, recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society's Adult Patient Database from 2018 to 2022. We undertook mixed effect logistic regression to compare hospital mortality across the sex groups, adjusted for illness severity, diagnosis, treatment limitation, year, and hospital. RESULTS: We examined 892,161 admissions, of whom 525 (0.06%) were classified as third sex. Patients classified as third sex were represented across all diagnostic categories, jurisdictions, and hospital types. On average, they were younger than the groups classified as female (59.2 ± 20.0 vs 61.3 ± 18.4 years; P = .02) or male (63.2 ± 16.7 years; P < .001), respectively. Patients classified as third sex were more likely to be admitted after orthopedic surgery (10.1% third sex admissions [95% CI, 7.7%-13.0%]; 6.2% female [95% CI, 6.1%-6.3%]; 4.8% male [95% CI, 4.7%-4.9%]) and drug overdose (8.8% third sex admissions [95% CI, 6.5%-11.5%]; 4.2% female [95% CI, 4.1%-4.2%]; 3.1% male [95% CI, 3.0%-3.1%]). There was no difference in the adjusted hospital mortality of patients classified as third sex compared with the other groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients classified as third sex composed a small minority group of adult ICU patients. This group had a different diagnostic case mix but similar outcomes to the groups classified as female or male. Further characterizing a third sex group will require improved processes for recording sex and gender in health records.

Embedding stakeholder preferences in setting priorities for health research: Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a multi-criteria tool for evaluating research proposals.

We determined weights for a multi-criteria tool for assessing the relative merits of clinical-trial research proposals, and investigated whether the weights vary across relevant stakeholder groups. A cross-sectional, adaptive discrete choice experiment using 1000minds online software was administered to consumers, researchers and funders affiliated with the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA). We identified weights for four criteria-Appropriateness, Significance, Relevance, Feasibility-and their levels, representing their relative importance, so that research proposals can be scored between 0% (nil or very low merit) and 100% (very high merit). From 220 complete survey responses, the most important criterion was Appropriateness (adjusted for differences between stakeholder groups, mean weight 28.9%) and the least important was Feasibility (adjusted mean weight 19.5%). Consumers tended to weight Relevance more highly (2.7% points difference) and Feasibility less highly (3.1% points difference) than researchers. The research or grant writing experience of researchers or consumers was not associated with the weights. A multi-criteria tool for evaluating research proposals that reflects stakeholders' preferences was created. The tool can be used to assess the relative merits of clinical trial research proposals and rank them, to help identify the best proposals for funding.

Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the low oxygen intervention for cardiac arrest injury limitation (LOGICAL) trial.

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) is uncertain and will be evaluated in the Low Oxygen Intervention for Cardiac Arrest injury Limitation (LOGICAL) trial. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plans for the LOGICAL trial. Design setting and participants: LOGICAL is a randomised clinical trial in adults in the ICU who are comatose with suspected HIE (i.e., those who have not obeyed commands following return of spontaneous circulation after a cardiac arrest where there is clinical concern about possible brain damage). The LOGICAL trial will include 1400 participants and is being conducted as a substudy of the Mega Randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU (Mega-ROX). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is survival with favourable neurological function at 180 days after randomisation as measured with the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E). A favourable neurological outcome will be defined as a GOS-E score of lower moderate disability or better (i.e. a GOS-E score of 5-8). Secondary outcomes include survival time, day 180 mortality, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, the proportion of patients discharged home, quality of life assessed at day 180 using the EQ-5D-5L, and cognitive function assessed at day 180 using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-blind). Conclusions: The LOGICAL trial will provide reliable data on the impact of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy in ICU patients with suspected HIE following resuscitation from a cardiac arrest. Prepublication of the LOGICAL protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to trial conclusion will reduce the potential for outcome-reporting or analysis bias. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000518864).

Blend to Limit OxygEN in ECMO: A RanDomised ControllEd Registry (BLENDER) Trial: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.

Introduction: Critically ill patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) are at risk of developing severe arterial hyperoxia, which has been associated with increased mortality. Lower saturation targets in this population may lead to deleterious episodes of severe hypoxia. This manuscript describes the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Blend to Limit OxygEN in ECMO: A RanDomised ControllEd Registry (BLENDER) Trial. Design: The BLENDER trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, registry-embedded, randomised clinical trial., registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03841084) and approved by The Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee project ID HREC/50486/Alfred-2019. Participants and setting: Patients supported by VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest who are enrolled in the Australian national ECMO registry. Intervention: The study compares a conservative oxygenation strategy (target arterial saturations 92-96%) with a liberal oxygenation strategy (target 97-100%). Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome is the number of intensive care unit (ICU)-free days for patients alive at day 60. Secondary outcomes include duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital mortality, the number of hypoxic episodes, neurocognitive outcomes, and health economic analyses. The 300-patient sample size enables us to detect a 3-day difference in ICU-free days at day 60, assuming a mean ICU-free days of 11 days, with a risk of type 1 error of 5% and power of 80%. Data will be analysed according to a predefined analysis plan. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions: This paper details the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the BLENDER trial, a registry-embedded, multicentre interventional trial comparing liberal and conservative oxygenation strategies in VA ECMO.

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.).

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).