Adverse effects with semaglutide: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Semaglutide is increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight and other conditions. It is well known that semaglutide lowers blood glucose levels and leads to significant weight loss. Still, a systematic review has yet to investigate the adverse effects with semaglutide for all patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in July 2024. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing oral or subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis; risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024499511.

Patient recall of intensive care delirium: A qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) experience delirium. Understanding the patient perspective of delirium is important to improve care and reduce suffering. The aim of our study was to investigate the subjective patient experience of delirium, delirium-related distress, and delirium management in ICU. METHODS: Our study had a qualitative multicenter design applying individual interviews and thematic analysis. Participants were critically ill adult patients that were determined delirium positive according to validated delirium screening tools during ICU admission. The interviews were conducted after ICU discharge when patients were delirium-free as assessed by the "Rapid clinical test for delirium" (4AT) and able to participate in an interview. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 patients choosing the main themes deductively: Delirium experience; Delirium related distress; and Delirium management. Despite variations in recollection detail, ICU survivors consistently reported delirium-related distress during and after their ICU stay, manifesting as temporal confusion, misinterpretations, and a sense of distrust towards ICU staff. Delusions were characterized by a blend of factual and fictional elements. Impaired short-term memory hindered communication and intensified feelings of isolation, neglect, and loss of control. CONCLUSION: The ICU survivors in our study recalled delirium as an unpleasant and frightening experience, often leading to delirium-related distress during and after their ICU stay, indicating the necessity for enhanced assessment and treatment.

Risks of serious adverse events with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly recommended for perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic treatments. Concerns regarding the potential for serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with perioperative NSAID treatment are especially relevant following gastrointestinal surgery. We assessed the risks of SAEs with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the harmful effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome was an incidence of SAEs. We systematically searched for eligible trials in five major databases up to January 2024. We performed risk of bias assessments to account for systematic errors, trial sequential analysis (TSA) to account for the risks of random errors, performed meta-analyses using R and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to describe the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 22 trials enrolling 1622 patients for our primary analyses. Most trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses (risk ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19; I2 = 4%; p = .24; very low certainty of evidence) and TSA indicated a lack of information on the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo on the risks of SAEs. Post-hoc beta-binomial regression sensitivity analyses including trials with zero events showed a reduction in SAEs with NSAIDs versus placebo (odds ratio 0.73; CI 0.54-0.99; p = .042). CONCLUSION: In adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the effects of NSAIDs on SAEs. The certainty of the evidence was very low.

The OPI•AID Zone Tool as a composite outcome for postoperative pain management quality-A protocol for an observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Managing postoperative pain while minimizing opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) remains a significant challenge. The OPI•AID Zone Tool is proposed as a novel clinical decision support tool that - both graphically and in a scoring-system - represents the relationship between pain management and the occurrence of ORADEs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes in postoperative care. The OPI•AID Zone Tool places pain score on the x-axis and an ORADE score on the y-axis, and stratifies patients into five zones to reflect the composite impact of pain severity and ORADEs on the quality of postoperative patient care. The study will have two key aims: (1) to explore whether the OPI•AID Zone Tool can function as a composite outcome measure for postoperative pain and ORADEs, and (2) to evaluate the use of the OPI•AID Zone Tool in visual presentations and for evaluation of patients' postoperative pain management quality. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study will include 200 adults undergoing various surgical procedures in general anesthesia with a subsequent stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) at Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. Substudy 1 primary outcome: To assess whether a zone score in the OPI•AID Zone Tool is associated with patient-perceived health (EQ VAS), quality of recovery (QoR-PACU), and time to discharge readiness in PACU, and if the zone score has a stronger association than pain and ORADE score in themselves. Substudy 2 primary outcome: To assess how the use of intraoperative non-opioid analgesics impact where patients are placed in the OPI•AID Zone Tool's XY scatterplot right after surgery. To assess if patients who receive more comprehensive non-opioid analgesic basic regimens, generally fall into lower zones. CONCLUSION: The OPI•AID Zone Tool could potentially be a valuable clinical decision-making tool for optimizing postoperative care by simultaneously addressing pain management and the risk of ORADEs. By computing a composite measure of these two critical outcomes, the tool could guide more nuanced and patient-centered analgesic regimens, potentially improving patient satisfaction and operational efficiency in postoperative settings. The tool's applicability will be explored in this observational pilot and followed up in a planned series of studies (opiaid.dk).

The efficacy and safety of ankle blocks for foot and ankle surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks may be essential elements in a multimodal pain management regime following foot and ankle surgery. We assessed the effects of ankle blocks compared with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase for randomised clinical trials comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block for patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. Our primary outcomes were duration of analgesia and cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption. We followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook, and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA), and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included five trials (362 participants) comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block and three trials (247 participants) comparing ankle block with a sciatic nerve block. Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block (MD 431 min; 96.7% CI 208 to 654), but the evidence was very uncertain. Duration was decreased when compared with a sciatic nerve block (MD -410 min; 96.7% CI -462 to -358). The ankle block duration was probably important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain in both comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block, but the evidence was very uncertain, and decrease the duration of analgesia when compared with a sciatic nerve block. The ankle block duration was probably clinically important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain.

Combined Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuncts to Popliteal and Saphenous Nerve Blocks in Patients Undergoing Surgery of the Foot or Ankle: A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine increase the duration of analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks. The authors hypothesized that combined intravenous dexamethasone and intravenous dexmedetomidine would result in a greater duration of analgesia when compared with intravenous dexamethasone alone and placebo. METHODS: The authors randomly allocated participants undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle under general anesthesia and with a combined popliteal (sciatic) and saphenous nerve block to a combination of 12 mg dexamethasone and 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, 12 mg dexamethasone, or placebo (saline). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia measured as the time from block performance until the first sensation of pain in the surgical area as reported by the participant. The authors predefined a 33% difference in the duration of analgesia as clinically relevant. RESULTS: A total of 120 participants from two centers were randomized and 119 analyzed for the primary outcome. The median [interquartile range] duration of analgesia was 1,572 min [1,259 to 1,715] with combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine, 1,400 min [1,133 to 1,750] with dexamethasone alone, and 870 min [748 to 1,138] with placebo. Compared with placebo, the duration was greater with combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine (difference, 564 min; 98.33% CI, 301 to 794; P < 0.001) and with dexamethasone (difference, 489 min; 98.33% CI, 265 to 706; P < 0.001). The prolongations exceeded the authors' predefined clinically relevant difference. The duration was similar when combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine was compared with dexamethasone alone (difference, 61 min; 98.33% CI, -222 to 331; P = 0.614). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone with or without dexmedetomidine increased the duration of analgesia in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle with a popliteal (sciatic) and saphenous nerve block. Combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine did not increase the duration of analgesia when compared with dexamethasone.

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

Non-opioid analgesic combinations following total hip arthroplasty (RECIPE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, blinded, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal postoperative analgesia following total hip arthroplasty is recommended, but the optimal combination of drugs remains uncertain. The aim of the RECIPE trial was to investigate the relative benefit and harm of the different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and the analgesic adjuvant dexamethasone for treatment of postoperative pain following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The RECIPE trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at nine Danish hospitals. Adults scheduled for total hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computer-generated list with stratification by site to receive combinations of oral paracetamol 1000 mg every 6 h, oral ibuprofen 400 mg every 6 h, or a single-dose of intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg in the following groups: paracetamol plus ibuprofen, ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. The primary outcome was 24 h intravenous morphine consumption, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned participants who underwent total hip arthroplasty. The predefined minimal important difference was 8 mg. Safety outcomes included serious and non-serious adverse events within 90 days and 24 h. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04123873. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2020, and Nov 15, 2022, we randomly assigned 1060 participants, of whom 1043 (589 [56%] women and 454 [44%] men) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 261 were assigned to paracetamol plus ibuprofen, 262 to ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, 262 to paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and 258 to paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. Median 24 h morphine consumption was 24 mg (IQR 12-38) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group, 20 mg (12-32) in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, 16 mg (10-30) in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, and 15 mg (8-26) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group. The paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had a significantly reduced 24 h morphine consumption compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -6 mg [99% CI -10 to -3]; p<0·0001) and paracetamol plus dexamethasone (-4 mg [-8 to -1]; p=0·0013), however, none of the comparisons showed differences reaching the minimal important threshold of 8 mg. 91 (35%) of 258 participants in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had one or more adverse events, compared with 99 (38%) of 262 in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, 103 (39%) of 262 in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, and 165 (63%) of 261 in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group. INTERPRETATION: In adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty, a combination of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone had the lowest morphine consumption within 24 h following surgery and the most favourable adverse event profile, with a lower incidence of serious and non-serious adverse events (primarily driven by differences in nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen. FUNDING: The Novo Nordisk Foundation and Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals' Research Fund.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression. RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Effects of combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as adjuncts to peripheral nerve blocks: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: The effects of combining dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on block duration are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of combining dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on block duration. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, the Web of Science, and BIOSIS until June 8, 2023. RCTs with adults undergoing surgery with a peripheral nerve block randomized to combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine versus placebo or other adjuncts were eligible. Primary outcome was duration of analgesia. We performed meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, risk of bias-2, and Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment. FINDINGS: We included 9 RCTs with 14 eligible comparisons. The combination of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine was compared with placebo in three RCTs (173 participants), dexamethasone in seven (569 participants), and dexmedetomidine in four (281 participants). The duration of analgesia was likely increased with the combination versus placebo (mean difference 460 min, 95% CI 249 to 671) and versus dexmedetomidine (mean difference 388 min, 95% CI 211 to 565). The duration was likely similar with the combination versus dexamethasone (mean difference 50 min, 95% CI -140 to 239). The certainty of the evidence was moderate because most trials were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine likely increased the duration of analgesia when compared with placebo and dexmedetomidine. The combination likely provided a similar duration of analgesia as dexamethasone. Based on this systematic review, it seems reasonable to use dexamethasone as the sole adjunct if the goal is to increase the duration of analgesia.

Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium.

PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo. METHODS: We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of - 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.8%-points to - 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI - 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

Associations of dexamethasone's effect on morphine consumption after total knee arthroplasty-Subgroup analyses.

The DEXamethasone twice for pain treatment after Total Knee Arthroplasty (DEX-2-TKA) trial showed that adding one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone to paracetamol, ibuprofen and local infiltration analgesia, reduced morphine consumption (primary outcome) within 48 h after TKA. We aimed to explore the differences in the effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in different subgroups. Quantile regression adjusted for site was used to test for significant interaction between the predefined dichotomised subgroups and treatment group. The subgroups were defined based on baseline data: sex (male/female), age (≤65 years/>65 years), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA)-score (ASA I + II/III), visual analogue score of preoperative pain at rest (≤30 mm/>30 mm), pain during mobilisation (≤30 mm/>30 mm), type of anaesthesia (spinal anaesthesia/general anaesthesia and spinal converted to general anaesthesia), and prior daily use of analgesics (either paracetamol and/or NSAID/neither). These analyses were supplemented with post hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. Test of interaction comparing sex in the pairwise comparison between DX2 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + dexamethasone [24 mg]) versus placebo (p = .02), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in male patients compared to females. Test of interaction comparing age in the pairwise comparison between DX1 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + placebo) versus placebo (p = .04), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in younger patients (≤65 years) compared to older. All remaining subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference. The supplemental multivariate analyses did not support any significant interaction for sex (p = .256) or age (p = .730) but supported a significant interaction with the type of anaesthesia (p < .001). Our results from the quantile regression analyses indicate that the male sex and younger age (≤65 years) may be associated with a larger analgesic effect of dexamethasone than the effects in other types of patients. However, this is not supported by post-hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. The two types of analyses both supported a possible interaction with the type of anaesthesia.

Prolonged effects of dexamethasone following total knee arthroplasty: A pre-planned sub-study of the DEX-2-TKA trial.

OBJECTIVES: The DEX-2-TKA trial demonstrated that one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to investigate the prolonged effects of dexamethasone after the 48-h intervention period. DESIGN: This was a prospective, pre-planned questionnaire follow-up on postoperative days 3-7 of patients in the DEX-2-TKA trial that randomly received: DX1 (dexamethasone 24 mg + placebo), DX2 (dexamethasone 24 mg + dexamethasone 24 mg), and placebo (placebo + placebo) perioperatively and 24 h later. SETTING: A multicenter trial performed at five Danish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 434 of 485 adult participants enrolled in the DEX-2-TKA trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between groups in average of all numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores reported in the morning, at bedtime, and the daily average pain on postoperative days 3-7. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) pain intensity levels for postoperative days 3-7 were: DX2 3.2 (2.1-4.3); DX1 3.3 (2.3-4.1); and placebo 3.3 (2.5-4.7). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: 0 (95% confidence interval - 0.54 to 0.2), P = 0.38 between DX1 and placebo; 0.1 (-0.47 to 0.33), p = .87 between DX1 and DX2; and 0.1 (-0.6 to 0.13), p = .20 between DX2 and placebo. We found no relevant differences between groups on sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 nor for patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found that neither one nor two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone demonstrated prolonged effects on overall pain or sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 after total knee arthroplasty. We also found that dexamethasone had no effect on patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789 (main result trial).

Validation of PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC in a Danish population of intensive care unit patients-A prospective observational multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a clinical condition characterized by an acute change in brain function and is frequently observed in critically ill patients. The condition has been associated with negative outcomes, making it crucial to identify patients who are at risk. Two recent prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients; the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and the early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC). We aimed to perform an external validation of these models in a Danish cohort of critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study to validate the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models in a population of patients admitted to four general ICUs in the Zealand Region of Denmark. From January 2022 to January 2023 all adult patients acutely admitted to the participating ICUs were assessed for eligibility. Patients had to be admitted to the ICU for >24 h to be included in the study. Included patients were screened with E-PRE-DELIRIC upon ICU admission and PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h of admission and followed throughout their ICU stay with CAM-ICU delirium assessments. Our primary outcomes were the prognostic accuracy measured by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) and the calibration plot for the E-PRE-DELIRIC and PRE-DELIRIC prediction models. RESULTS: We included 660 patients, of whom 660 were assessed with E-PRE-DELIRIC, and 622 were assessed with PRE-DELIRIC. PRE-DELIRIC showed acceptable discrimination with AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and good calibration. E-PRE-DELIRIC had inadequate discrimination AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and poor calibration. CONCLUSION: In a Danish cohort, we found that the PRE-DELIRIC model demonstrated acceptable performance and E-PRE-DELIRIC demonstrated poor performance. In critically ill adult patients PRE-DELIRIC may be useful in identifying patients at high risk of delirium.

Platform trials.

Platform trials focus on the perpetual testing of many interventions in a disease or a setting. These trials have lasting organizational, administrative, data, analytic, and operational frameworks making them highly efficient. The use of adaptation often increases the probabilities of allocating participants to better interventions and obtaining conclusive results. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the potential of platform trials as a fast and valid way to improved treatments. This review gives an overview of key concepts and elements using the Intensive Care Platform Trial (INCEPT) as an example.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. METHODS: This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Remimazolam for sedation: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and GRADE approach.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation aims to facilitate a successful diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The pharmacokinetic properties and pharmacodynamic effects need to be taken into consideration when choosing the ideal sedative. Midazolam and propofol are frequently employed. However, they are associated with respiratory depression with increasing dosage. Also, midazolam has a potentially unpredictable pharmacodynamic response and propofol may cause hypotension and injection site pain. Remimazolam may provide a superior alternative due to its rapid pharmacodynamic profile and insignificant circulatory effects. METHODS: This protocol employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful clinical effects of remimazolam versus placebo or other sedatives in adult patients requiring sedation in relation to a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, or due to other circumstances. Three primary outcomes are identified: Sedation success rate, respiratory complications, and hemodynamic complications. Six secondary outcomes are identified: among these are quality of recovery and serious adverse events. All randomized trials are included. The search strategy includes six major biomedical databases. Literature screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Risk of systemic error will be assessed with Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Risk of random error will be assessed with trial sequential analysis. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by appropriate statistical tests. The certainty of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis will be carried out with Rstudio. A "Summary of Findings" table will be presented with our primary and secondary outcome results. DISCUSSION: The systematic review with up-to-date methodology outlined in this protocol investigates the clinical effects of remimazolam in relation to procedural sedation. The results may guide clinicians in the clinical use of remimazolam.

Ketamine for postoperative pain treatment in spinal surgery: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

AIM: We aimed to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative pain treatment with ketamine in patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until 15 February 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing ketamine with placebo or no intervention in patients undergoing spinal surgery. The primary outcomes were cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively and serious adverse events. We adhered to recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to assess the risks of random errors, risk of bias assessment to evaluate the risks of systematic errors, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included a total of 28 randomised clinical trials enrolling 2110 participants providing data for our pre-defined outcomes. Twenty-three trials enrolled adult participants and 5 trials enrolled paediatric participants. Three trials were at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis and TSA of trials including adults showed that ketamine versus placebo or no intervention seemed to reduce the cumulative 24-h opioid consumption (mean difference -17.57 mg; TSA-adjusted 95% confidence interval, -24.22 to -10.92; p < .01; low certainty of evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference of ketamine versus placebo or no intervention on the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 2.16; 96.7% confidence interval, 0.35 to 13.17; p = .36; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: In adults undergoing spinal surgery, ketamine may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Ketamine may increase the occurrence of serious adverse events, but the evidence was very uncertain.

Chronic Pain and Functional Outcome 3 years After Total Knee Arthroplasty and Perioperative Dexamethasone: A Follow-Up of the Randomized, Clinical DEX-2-TKA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative dexamethasone as an adjunct to multimodal analgesia, has an opioid-sparing and pain alleviating effect after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however, the 3-year effects are unknown. We aimed to investigate the 3-year effect of 1 (DX1) or 2 (DX2) intravenous doses of 24 mg dexamethasone or placebo on pain, physical function, and health-related quality of life after TKA. METHODS: Patients who participated in the Dexamethasone Twice for Pain Treatment after TKA (DEX-2-TKA) were invited to physical tests and questionnaires (self-reported characteristics, Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol-5Dimensions-5Levels (EQ5D5L), and PainDetect). The tests were 40-meter Fast Paced Walk (40FPW) test, Timed Up and Go (TUG), 30 Second Chair Stand test (30CST), Stair Climb Test (SCT), bilateral knee Range of Motion, and knee extension torque. For each test the peak pain intensity was registered on a 0 to 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Primary outcome was average peak pain intensity during the 40FPW, TUG, 30CST and SCT. Secondary outcomes were the tests and questionnaires. Out of 252 eligible patients, 133 (52.8%) underwent the tests and 160 (63.5%) answered the questionnaires. Mean follow-up time was 33 months (range, 23 to 40). RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) peak pain intensity was 0 (0 to 65) for the DX2 group, 0 (0 to 51) for DX1 group and 0 (0 to 70) for the placebo group (P = .72). No differences in secondary outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: One or 2 intravenous doses of 24 mg dexamethasone did not impact chronic pain development or physical function 3 years after TKA.