Positive single-center randomized trials and subsequent multicenter randomized trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how often survival benefits observed in single-center randomized controlled trials (sRCTs) involving critically ill patients are confirmed by subsequent multicenter randomized controlled trials (mRCTs). We aimed to perform a systemic literature review of sRCTs with a statistically significant mortality reduction and to evaluate whether subsequent mRCTs confirmed such reduction. METHODS: We searched PubMed for sRCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or Lancet, from inception until December 31, 2016. We selected studies reporting a statistically significant mortality decrease using any intervention (drug, technique, or strategy) in adult critically ill patients. We then searched for subsequent mRCTs addressing the same research question tested by the sRCT. We compared the concordance of results between sRCTs and mRCTs when any mRCT was available. We registered this systematic review in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023455362). RESULTS: We identified 19 sRCTs reporting a significant mortality reduction in adult critically ill patients. For 16 sRCTs, we identified at least one subsequent mRCT (24 trials in total), while the interventions from three sRCTs have not yet been addressed in a subsequent mRCT. Only one out of 16 sRCTs (6%) was followed by a mRCT replicating a significant mortality reduction; 14 (88%) were followed by mRCTs with no mortality difference. The positive finding of one sRCT (6%) on intensive glycemic control was contradicted by a subsequent mRCT showing a significant mortality increase. Of the 14 sRCTs referenced at least once in international guidelines, six (43%) have since been either removed or suggested against in the most recent versions of relevant guidelines. CONCLUSION: Mortality reduction shown by sRCTs is typically not replicated by mRCTs. The findings of sRCTs should be considered hypothesis-generating and should not contribute to guidelines.

Four Decades of Randomized Clinical Trials Influencing Mortality in Critically Ill and Perioperative Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) represent the highest level of scientific evidence. The aim of this review was to map and summarize the main characteristics and publication trends of RCTs with a statistically significant effect on mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients. DESIGN: A mapping review of RCTs published between January 1982 and January 2021. The authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs reporting mortality data. A descriptive analysis was conducted, including general and methodologic information of all these RCTs with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors identified 340 studies published in 115 journals from 42 countries. The most represented clinical areas were ventilatory support (n = 58, 17%) and hemodynamics (n = 56, 16%). A detrimental effect on survival was described in 47 (14%) RCTs. Denmark had the highest number of published trials per million inhabitants. A total of 40 (12%) RCTs were led by a female author. The intention-to-treat principle was applied overall in 60% of RCTs, though this percentage increased up to 75% when the study was published in journals with high impact factor. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest contemporary RCTs database of interventions significantly influencing mortality, the authors found an increase in scientific production. United States, China, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom contributed with 172 (51%) RCTs over 40 years. Only 20% of the studies were multinational collaborations, though this percentage increased over time. The presence of women as first authors was 1 out of 8 RCTs.

Effects on health-related quality of life of interventions affecting survival in critically ill patients: a systematic review.

Survival has been considered the cornerstone for clinical outcome evaluation in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). There is evidence that ICU survivors commonly show impairments in long-term outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) considering them as the most relevant ones. In the last years, the concept of patient-important outcomes has been introduced and increasingly reported in peer-reviewed publications. In the present systematic review, we evaluated how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted on critically ill patients and reporting a benefit on survival reported also data on QoL. All RCTs investigating nonsurgical interventions that significantly reduced mortality in critically ill patients were searched on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception until August 2021. In a second stage, for all the included studies, the outcome QoL was investigated. The primary outcome was to evaluate how many RCTs analyzing interventions reducing mortality reported also data on QoL. The secondary endpoint was to investigate if QoL resulted improved, worsened or not modified. Data on QoL were reported as evaluated outcome in 7 of the 239 studies (2.9%). The tools to evaluate QoL and QoL time points were heterogeneous. Four interventions showed a significant impact on QoL: Two interventions improved survival and QoL (pravastatin in subarachnoid hemorrhage, dexmedetomidine in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery), while two interventions reduced mortality but negatively influenced QoL (caloric restriction in patients with refeeding syndrome and systematic ICU admission in elderly patients). In conclusion, only a minority of RCTs in which an intervention demonstrated to affect mortality in critically ill patients reported also data on QoL. Future research in critical care should include patient-important outcomes like QoL besides mortality. Data on this topic should be collected in conformity with PROs statement and core outcome sets to guarantee quality and comparability of results.

Efficacy and effects of bariatric surgery in the treatment of obesity: Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: Bariatric surgery (BS) is recommended for subjects with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over of 40 kg/m2 or with a BMI between 35 and 40 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities. Aim of the study was to compare different types of BS with medical therapy (MT) for the treatment of obesity. DATA SYNTHESIS: We conducted a network-meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized clinical trials comparing different BS techniques versus MT in people with obesity, with a duration ≥24 weeks (PROSPERO, #CRD42020160359). Primary endpoint was BMI. Indirect comparisons of different types of surgery were performed by NMA. Types of BS included: laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), bilio-pancreatic diversion (BPD); greater curvature plication (GCP); one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB); Laparoscopic Vertical Banded Gastroplasty (LVBG) and duodenal switch (DS). 43 trials were retrieved in this metanalysis. BS was associated with a significant reduction in BMI, systolic blood pressure, triglyceride and fasting glucose, and with a significant increase of HDL cholesterol when compared to MT. In direct comparisons, RYGB was more effective than LAGB, LVBG, and GCP, but less effective than DS, whereas LAGB was less effective than LVBG and SG. In the NMA, DS and BPD appeared to be more effective than other procedures. CONCLUSIONS: BS produces a greater weight loss than MT in morbidly obese patients, inducing a greater improvement of obesity-associated metabolic parameters. Available data are insufficient to assess the effect of BS on mortality. Different surgical procedures are heterogeneous for efficacy and safety.