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).

Prehospital Tranexamic Acid for Severe Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Whether prehospital administration of tranexamic acid increases the likelihood of survival with a favorable functional outcome among patients with major trauma and suspected trauma-induced coagulopathy who are being treated in advanced trauma systems is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with major trauma who were at risk for trauma-induced coagulopathy to receive tranexamic acid (administered intravenously as a bolus dose of 1 g before hospital admission, followed by a 1-g infusion over a period of 8 hours after arrival at the hospital) or matched placebo. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months after injury, as assessed with the use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E). Levels on the GOS-E range from 1 (death) to 8 ("upper good recovery" [no injury-related problems]). We defined survival with a favorable functional outcome as a GOS-E level of 5 ("lower moderate disability") or higher. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause within 28 days and within 6 months after injury. RESULTS: A total of 1310 patients were recruited by 15 emergency medical services in Australia, New Zealand, and Germany. Of these patients, 661 were assigned to receive tranexamic acid, and 646 were assigned to receive placebo; the trial-group assignment was unknown for 3 patients. Survival with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months occurred in 307 of 572 patients (53.7%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 299 of 559 (53.5%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.12; P = 0.95). At 28 days after injury, 113 of 653 patients (17.3%) in the tranexamic acid group and 139 of 637 (21.8%) in the placebo group had died (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). By 6 months, 123 of 648 patients (19.0%) in the tranexamic acid group and 144 of 629 (22.9%) in the placebo group had died (risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.03). The number of serious adverse events, including vascular occlusive events, did not differ meaningfully between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with major trauma and suspected trauma-induced coagulopathy who were being treated in advanced trauma systems, prehospital administration of tranexamic acid followed by an infusion over 8 hours did not result in a greater number of patients surviving with a favorable functional outcome at 6 months than placebo. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PATCH-Trauma ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02187120.).

Balanced crystalloid solution versus saline in deceased donor kidney transplantation (BEST-Fluids): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Delayed graft function (DGF) is a major adverse complication of deceased donor kidney transplantation. Intravenous fluids are routinely given to patients receiving a transplant to maintain intravascular volume and optimise graft function. Saline (0·9% sodium chloride) is widely used but might increase the risk of DGF due to its high chloride content. We aimed to test our hypothesis that using a balanced low-chloride crystalloid solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) instead of saline would reduce the incidence of DGF. METHODS: BEST-Fluids was a pragmatic, registry-embedded, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial at 16 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Adults and children of any age receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant were eligible; those receiving a multi-organ transplant or weighing less than 20 kg were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using an adaptive minimisation algorithm to intravenous balanced crystalloid solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) or saline during surgery and up until 48 h after transplantation. Trial fluids were supplied in identical bags and clinicians determined the fluid volume, rate, and time of discontinuation. The primary outcome was DGF, defined as receiving dialysis within 7 days after transplantation. All participants who consented and received a transplant were included in the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned eligible participants who commenced surgery and received trial fluids, whether or not they received a transplant. This study is registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, (ACTRN12617000358347), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03829488). FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2018, and Aug 10, 2020, 808 participants were randomly assigned to balanced crystalloid (n=404) or saline (n=404) and received a transplant (512 [63%] were male and 296 [37%] were female). One participant in the saline group withdrew before 7 days and was excluded, leaving 404 participants in the balanced crystalloid group and 403 in the saline group that were included in the primary analysis. DGF occurred in 121 (30%) of 404 participants in the balanced crystalloid group versus 160 (40%) of 403 in the saline group (adjusted relative risk 0·74 [95% CI 0·66 to 0·84; p<0·0001]; adjusted risk difference 10·1% [95% CI 3·5 to 16·6]). In the safety analysis, numbers of investigator-reported serious adverse events were similar in both groups, being reported in three (<1%) of 406 participants in the balanced crystalloid group versus five (1%) of 409 participants in the saline group (adjusted risk difference -0·5%, 95% CI -1·8 to 0·9; p=0·48). INTERPRETATION: Among patients receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant, intravenous fluid therapy with balanced crystalloid solution reduced the incidence of DGF compared with saline. Balanced crystalloid solution should be the standard-of-care intravenous fluid used in deceased donor kidney transplantation. FUNDING: Medical Research Future Fund and National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Health Research Council (New Zealand), Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and Baxter.

Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Sedation in Critically Ill Patients and Dose-associated 90-Day Mortality: A Secondary Cohort Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial (SPICE III).

Rationale: The SPICE III (Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation) trial reported significant heterogeneity in mortality with dexmedetomidine treatment. Supplemental propofol was commonly used to achieve desirable sedation. Objectives: To quantify the association of different infusion rates of dexmedetomidine and propofol, given in combination, with mortality and to determine if this is modified by age. Methods: We included 1,177 patients randomized in SPICE III to receive dexmedetomidine and given supplemental propofol, stratified by age (>65 or ⩽65 yr). We used double stratification analysis to produce quartiles of steady infusion rates of dexmedetomidine while escalating propofol dose and vice versa. We used Cox proportional hazard and multivariable regression adjusted for relevant clinical variable to evaluate the association of sedative dose with 90-day mortality. Measurements and Main Results: Younger patients (598 of 1,177 [50.8%]) received significantly higher doses of both sedatives compared with older patients to achieve comparable sedation depth. On double stratification analysis, escalating infusion rates of propofol to 1.27 mg/kg/h at a steady dexmedetomidine infusion rate (0.54 µg/kg/h) was associated with reduced adjusted mortality in younger but not older patients. This was consistent with multivariable regression modeling (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.78; P < 0.0001) adjusted for baseline risk and interaction with dexmedetomidine dose. In contrast, among younger patients, using multivariable regression, escalating dexmedetomidine infusion rate was associated with increased adjusted mortality (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.65; P = 0.029). Conclusions: In patients ⩽65 years of age sedated with dexmedetomidine and propofol combination, preferentially increasing the dose of propofol was associated with decreased adjusted 90-day mortality. Conversely, increasing dexmedetomidine may be associated with increased mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01728558).

Platform trials for anaesthesia and perioperative medicine: a narrative review.

Large randomised trials provide the most reliable evidence of effectiveness of new treatments in clinical practice. However, the time and resources required to complete such trials can be daunting. An overarching clinical trial platform focused on a single condition or type of surgery, aiming to compare several treatments, with an option to stop any or add in new treatment options, can provide greater efficiency. This has the potential to accelerate knowledge acquisition and identify effective, ineffective, or harmful treatments faster. The master protocol of the platform defines the study population(s) and standardised procedures. Ineffective or harmful treatments can be discarded or study drug dose modified during the life cycle of the trial. Other adaptive elements that can be modified include eligibility criteria, required sample size for any comparison(s), randomisation assignment ratio, and the addition of other promising treatment options. There are excellent opportunities for anaesthetists to establish platform trials in perioperative medicine. Platform trials are highly efficient, with the potential to provide quicker answers to important clinical questions that lead to improved patient care.

A Randomized Trial of Nafamostat for Covid-19.

A Randomized Trial of Nafamostat for Covid-19Nafamostat mesylate is a potent in vitro antiviral that inhibits the host transmembrane protease serine 2 enzyme used by SARS-CoV-2 for cell entry. Morpeth et al report the results of an open-label randomized clinical trial of nafamostat for noncritically ill patients with Covid-19.

Baseline Characteristics and Representativeness of Participants in the BEST-Fluids Trial: A Randomized Trial of Balanced Crystalloid Solution Versus Saline in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation.

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a major complication of deceased donor kidney transplantation. Saline (0.9% sodium chloride) is a commonly used intravenous fluid in transplantation but may increase the risk of DGF because of its high chloride content. Better Evidence for Selecting Transplant Fluids (BEST-Fluids), a pragmatic, registry-based, double-blind, randomized trial, sought to determine whether using a balanced low-chloride crystalloid solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) instead of saline would reduce DGF. We sought to evaluate the generalizability of the trial cohort by reporting the baseline characteristics and representativeness of the trial participants in detail. Methods: We compared the characteristics of BEST-Fluids participants with those of a contemporary cohort of deceased donor kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. To explore potential international differences, we compared trial participants with a cohort of transplant recipients in the United States using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Results: During the trial recruitment period, 2373 deceased donor kidney transplants were performed in Australia and New Zealand; 2178 were eligible' and 808 were enrolled in BEST-Fluids. Overall, trial participants and nonparticipants were similar at baseline. Trial participants had more coronary artery disease (standardized difference [d] = 0.09; P = 0.03), longer dialysis duration (d = 0.18, P < 0.001), and fewer hypertensive (d = -0.11, P = 0.03) and circulatory death (d = -0.14, P < 0.01) donors than nonparticipants. Most key characteristics were similar between trial participants and US recipients, with moderate differences (|d| ≥ 0.2; all P < 0.001) in kidney failure cause, diabetes, dialysis duration, ischemic time, and several donor risk predictors, likely reflecting underlying population differences. Conclusions: BEST-Fluids participants had more comorbidities and received slightly fewer high-risk deceased donor kidneys but were otherwise representative of Australian and New Zealand transplant recipients and were generally similar to US recipients. The trial results should be broadly applicable to deceased donor kidney transplantation practice worldwide.

The Effect of a Liberal Approach to Glucose Control in Critically Ill Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Open-Label Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Blood glucose concentrations affect outcomes in critically ill patients, but the optimal target blood glucose range in those with type 2 diabetes is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of a "liberal" approach to targeted blood glucose range during ICU admission. Methods: This mutlicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial included 419 adult patients with type 2 diabetes expected to be in the ICU on at least three consecutive days. In the intervention group intravenous insulin was commenced at a blood glucose >252 mg/dl and titrated to a target range of 180-252 mg/dl. In the comparator group insulin was commenced at a blood glucose >180 mg/dl and titrated to a target range of 108-180 mg/dl. The primary outcome was incident hypoglycemia (<72 mg/dl). Secondary outcomes included glucose metrics and clinical outcomes. Measurements and Main Results: By Day 28, at least one episode of hypoglycemia occurred in 10 of 210 (5%) patients assigned the intervention and 38 of 209 (18%) patients assigned the comparator (incident rate ratio, 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.09 to 0.49]; P < 0.001). Those assigned the intervention had greater blood glucose concentrations (daily mean, minimum, maximum), less glucose variability, and less relative hypoglycemia (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). By Day 90, 62 of 210 (29.5%) in the intervention and 52 of 209 (24.9%) in the comparator group had died (absolute difference, 4.6 percentage points [95% CI, -3.9% to 13.2%]; P = 0.29). Conclusions: A liberal approach to blood glucose targets reduced incident hypoglycemia but did not improve patient-centered outcomes. Clinical trial registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12616001135404).

Early sedation with dexmedetomidine in ventilated critically ill patients and heterogeneity of treatment effect in the SPICE III randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To quantify potential heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), of early sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with usual care, and identify patients who have a high probability of lower or higher 90-day mortality according to age, and other identified clusters. METHODS: Bayesian analysis of 3904 critically ill adult patients expected to receive invasive ventilation > 24 h and enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing early DEX with usual care sedation. RESULTS: HTE was assessed according to age and clusters (based on 12 baseline characteristics) using a Bayesian hierarchical models. DEX was associated with lower 90-day mortality compared to usual care in patients > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% credible interval [CrI] 0.68-1.00], with 97.7% probability of reduced mortality across broad categories of illness severity. Conversely, the probability of increased mortality in patients ≤ 65 years was 98.5% (OR 1.26 [95% CrI 1.02-1.56]. Two clusters were identified: cluster 1 (976 patients) mostly operative, and cluster 2 (2346 patients), predominantly non-operative. There was a greater probability of benefit with DEX in cluster 1 (OR 0.86 [95% CrI 0.65-1.14]) across broad categories of age, with 86.4% probability that DEX is more beneficial in cluster 1 than cluster 2. CONCLUSION: In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, early sedation with dexmedetomidine exhibited a high probability of reduced 90-day mortality in older patients regardless of operative or non-operative cluster status. Conversely, a high probability of increased 90-day mortality was observed in younger patients of non-operative status. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system.

The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.

Study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Liberal Glucose Control in Critically Ill Patients with Pre-existing Type 2 Diabetes (LUCID) trial.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary glucose management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with type 2 diabetes is based on trial data derived predominantly from patients without type 2 diabetes. This is despite the recognition that patients with type 2 diabetes may be relatively more tolerant of hyperglycaemia and more susceptible to hypoglycaemia. It is uncertain whether glucose targets should be more liberal in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To detail the protocol, analysis and reporting plans for a randomised clinical trial - the Liberal Glucose Control in Critically Ill Patients with Pre-existing Type 2 Diabetes (LUCID) trial - which will evaluate the risks and benefits of targeting a higher blood glucose range in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: A multicentre, parallel group, open label phase 2B randomised controlled clinical trial of 450 critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to liberal blood glucose (target 10.0-14.0 mmol/L) or usual care (target 6.0-10.0 mmol/L). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint is incident hypoglycaemia (< 4.0 mmol/L) during the study intervention. Secondary endpoints include biochemical and feasibility outcomes. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The study protocol and statistical analysis plan described will delineate conduct and analysis of the trial, such that analytical and reporting bias are minimised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN No. 12616001135404) and has been endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group.

Study Protocol for Better Evidence for Selecting Transplant Fluids (BEST-Fluids): a pragmatic, registry-based, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of intravenous fluid therapy with Plasma-Lyte 148 versus 0.9% saline on delayed graft function in deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Delayed graft function, the requirement for dialysis due to poor kidney function post-transplant, is a frequent complication of deceased donor kidney transplantation and is associated with inferior outcomes and higher costs. Intravenous fluids given during and after transplantation may affect the risk of poor kidney function after transplant. The most commonly used fluid, isotonic sodium chloride (0.9% saline), contains a high chloride concentration, which may be associated with acute kidney injury, and could increase the risk of delayed graft function. Whether using a balanced, low-chloride fluid instead of 0.9% saline is safe and improves kidney function after deceased donor kidney transplantation is unknown. METHODS: BEST-Fluids is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The primary objective is to compare the effect of intravenous Plasma-Lyte 148 (Plasmalyte), a balanced, low-chloride solution, with the effect of 0.9% saline on the incidence of delayed graft function in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients. From January 2018 onwards, 800 participants admitted for deceased donor kidney transplantation will be recruited over 3 years in Australia and New Zealand. Participants are randomized 1:1 to either intravenous Plasmalyte or 0.9% saline peri-operatively and until 48 h post-transplant, or until fluid is no longer required; whichever comes first. Follow up is for 1 year. The primary outcome is the incidence of delayed graft function, defined as dialysis in the first 7 days post-transplant. Secondary outcomes include early kidney transplant function (composite of dialysis duration and rate of improvement in graft function when dialysis is not required), hyperkalemia, mortality, graft survival, graft function, quality of life, healthcare resource use, and cost-effectiveness. Participants are enrolled, randomized, and followed up using the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry. DISCUSSION: If using Plasmalyte instead of 0.9% saline is effective at reducing delayed graft function and improves other clinical outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplantation, this simple, inexpensive change to using a balanced low-chloride intravenous fluid at the time of transplantation could be easily implemented in the vast majority of transplant settings worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000358347. Registered on 8 March 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03829488. Registered on 4 February 2019.

Effect of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis With Proton Pump Inhibitors vs Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers on In-Hospital Mortality Among ICU Patients Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: The PEPTIC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RBs) are often prescribed for patients as stress ulcer prophylaxis drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU). The comparative effect of these drugs on mortality is unknown. Objective: To compare in-hospital mortality rates using PPIs vs H2RBs for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster crossover randomized clinical trial conducted at 50 ICUs in 5 countries between August 2016 and January 2019. Patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 hours of ICU admission were followed up for 90 days at the hospital. Interventions: Two stress ulcer prophylaxis strategies were compared (preferential use with PPIs vs preferential use with H2RBs). Each ICU used each strategy sequentially for 6 months in random order; 25 ICUs were randomized to the sequence with use of PPIs and then use of H2RBs and 25 ICUs were randomized to the sequence with use of H2RBs and then use of PPIs (13 436 patients randomized by site to PPIs and 13 392 randomized by site to H2RBs). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days during index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridioides difficile infection, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Results: Among 26 982 patients who were randomized, 154 opted out, and 26 828 were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 58 [17.0] years; 9691 [36.1%] were women). There were 26 771 patients (99.2%) included in the mortality analysis; 2459 of 13 415 patients (18.3%) in the PPI group died at the hospital by day 90 and 2333 of 13 356 patients (17.5%) in the H2RB group died at the hospital by day 90 (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.10]; absolute risk difference, 0.93 percentage points [95% CI, -0.01 to 1.88] percentage points; P = .054). An estimated 4.1% of patients randomized by ICU site to PPIs actually received H2RBs and an estimated 20.1% of patients randomized by ICU site to H2RBs actually received PPIs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 1.3% of the PPI group and 1.8% of the H2RB group (risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92]; absolute risk difference, -0.51 percentage points [95% CI, -0.90 to -0.12 percentage points]; P = .009). Rates of Clostridioides difficile infection and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were not significantly different by treatment group. One adverse event (an allergic reaction) was reported in 1 patient in the PPI group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation, a strategy of stress ulcer prophylaxis with use of proton pump inhibitors vs histamine-2 receptor blockers resulted in hospital mortality rates of 18.3% vs 17.5%, respectively, a difference that did not reach the significance threshold. However, study interpretation may be limited by crossover in the use of the assigned medication. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616000481471.

Randomised evaluation of active control of temperature versus ordinary temperature management (REACTOR) trial.

PURPOSE: It is unknown whether protocols targeting systematic prevention and treatment of fever achieve lower mean body temperature than usual care in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The objective of the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of temperature vs. ORdinary temperature management trial was to confirm the feasibility of such a protocol with a view to conducting a larger trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned 184 adults without acute brain pathologies who had a fever in the previous 12 h, and were expected to be ventilated beyond the calendar day after recruitment, to systematic prevention and treatment of fever or usual care. The primary outcome was mean body temperature in the ICU within 7 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU-free days and survival time censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Compared with usual temperature management, active management significantly reduced mean temperature. In both groups, fever generally abated within 72 h. The mean temperature difference between groups was greatest in the first 48 h, when it was generally in the order of 0.5 °C. Overall, 23 of 89 patients assigned to active management (25.8%) and 23 of 89 patients assigned to usual management (25.8%) died in hospital (odds ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.51-1.96, P = 1.0). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in ICU-free days or survival to day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Active temperature management reduced body temperature compared with usual care; however, fever abated rapidly, even in patients assigned to usual care, and the magnitude of temperature separation was small. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number, ACTRN12616001285448.

Early Sedation with Dexmedetomidine in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).

Opinions and practices of blood glucose control in critically ill patients with pre-existing type 2 diabetes in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9000 patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia and New Zealand annually. For these patients, recent exploratory data suggest that targeting a more liberal blood glucose range during ICU admission may be safe and potentially beneficial. However, the current approach to blood glucose management of patients with T2DM in Australia and New Zealand ICUs is not well described, and there is uncertainty about clinician equipoise for trials of liberal glycaemic control in these patients. AIM: The aim is to describe self-reported blood glucose management in patients with T2DM by intensivists working in Australian and New Zealand ICUs and to establish whether equipoise exists for a trial of liberal versus standard glycaemic control in such patients. METHOD: An online questionnaire of Australia and New Zealand intensivists conducted in July-September 2016. RESULTS: Seventy-one intensivists responded. Forty-five (63%) used a basic nomogram to titrate insulin. Sixty-six (93%) reported that insulin was commenced at blood glucose concentrations >10 mmol/L and titrated to achieve a blood glucose concentration between 6.0 and 10.0 mmol/L. A majority of respondents (75%) indicated that there was insufficient evidence to define optimal blood glucose targets in patients with T2DM, and 59 (83%) were prepared to enrol such patients in a clinical trial to evaluate a more liberal approach. CONCLUSION: A majority of respondents were uncertain about the optimal blood glucose target range for patients with T2DM and would enrol such patients in a comparative trial of conventional versus liberal blood glucose control.

A cluster randomised, crossover, registry-embedded clinical trial of proton pump inhibitors versus histamine-2 receptor blockers for ulcer prophylaxis therapy in the intensive care unit (PEPTIC study): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The balance of risks and benefits with using proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) versus histamine-2 receptor blockers (H2RB) for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients who are invasively ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Proton Pump Inhibitors versus Histamine-2 Receptor Blockers for Ulcer Prophylaxis Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit (PEPTIC) study. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, cluster crossover, registry-embedded trial to be conducted in 50 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The PEPTIC study will compare two approaches to stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated adults implemented at the level of the ICU. One approach is to use PPIs as the default therapy and the other approach is to use H2RBs as the default therapy when stress ulcer prophylaxis is prescribed. Each ICU, by random allocation, will use one approach for 6 months and will then switch to the opposite approach for the next 6 months. The PEPTIC study began recruitment in August 2016 and will complete recruitment in January 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point will be in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include clinically significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Clostridium difficile infection, ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The PEPTIC study will compare the effect on in-hospital mortality of implementing, at the level of the ICU, the use of PPI as the preferred agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis in mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU with using H2RB as the preferred agent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTRN 12616000481471).

Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for the intensive care unit randomised trial comparing two approaches to oxygen therapy (ICU-ROX).

BACKGROUND: The balance of risks and benefits of conservative v standard care oxygen strategies for patients who are invasively ventilated in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the ICU randomised trial comparing two approaches to oxygen therapy (ICU-ROX). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a multicentre, randomised, participant and outcome assessor-blinded, standard care-controlled, parallel-group, two-sided superiority trial to be conducted in up to 22 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. 1000 adults who are mechanically ventilated in the ICU and expected to remain ventilated beyond the day after recruitment will be randomly assigned to conservative oxygen therapy or standard care in a 1:1 ratio. ICU-ROX began with an internal pilot phase in September 2015. It is anticipated that recruitment will be completed in 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint will be alive, ventilator-free days to Day 28. Secondary outcomes include 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality, survival time to 180 days, and quality of life and cognitive function at 180 days. All analyses will be conducted on an intentionto- treat basis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: ICU-ROX will compare the effect of conservative v standard oxygen therapy in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults who are expected to be ventilated beyond the day after recruitment on ventilatorfree days to Day 28. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTRN 12615000957594).

Intensive care unit randomised trial comparing two approaches to oxygen therapy (ICU-ROX): results of the pilot phase.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the intensive care unit randomised trial comparing two approaches to oxygen therapy (ICU-ROX) pilot phase, which included the first 100 patients of an overall sample of 1000, was to examine feasibility. DESIGN: Investigator-initiated, prospective, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Six medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand, with participants recruited from September 2015 through June 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 100 patients ≥ 18 years of age who required invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU and were expected to be receiving it beyond the next calendar day at the time of randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: Conservative oxygen therapy or standard care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility, recruitment rate, and separation in oxygen exposure (fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] and oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry [SpO2Z]). RESULTS: 94 of 99 participants (94.9%) were confirmed by study monitors to fulfil the study eligibility criteria. 3.6 patients per site per month were enrolled (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-4.7). Patients allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent significantly more time on an FiO2 of 0.21 in the ICU; median, 31.5 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 7-63.5) for conservative oxygen therapy patients v 0 hours for standard oxygen therapy patients (IQR, 0-10; midpoint difference, 21.5 hours; 95% CI, 9-34; P < 0.0001). Patients allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2Z of ≥ 97% than patients allocated to standard oxygen therapy; median, 18.5 hours (IQR, 5-46) for conservative oxygen therapy patients v 32 hours for standard oxygen therapy (IQR, 17-80; midpoint difference, 13.5 hours; 95% CI, 2-25; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the feasibility of completing the ICU-ROX trial without the need for substantive changes to the study protocol for the remaining 900 trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTRN 12615000957594).