Adverse Effects Related to Corticosteroid Use in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs (n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29-1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

Home respiratory strategies in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Home non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) may improve chronic hypercarbia in COPD and patient important outcomes. The efficacy of home high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as an alternative is unclear.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized trials of patients from inception to March 31st and updated the search on July 14, 2023. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analyzed randomized trials (RCTs) comparing NPPV, HFNC, or standard care in adult COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Outcomes included mortality, COPD exacerbations, hospitalizations, and quality of life (SGRQ).Results: We analyzed twenty-four RCTs (1850 patients). We found that NPPV may reduce death risk compared to standard care (relative risk [RR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.66 to 1.00]) and probably reduces acute exacerbations (RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.58 to 0.87]). HFNC probably reduces acute exacerbations compared to standard care (RR 0.77 [0.68 to 0.88]) but its effect on mortality is uncertain (RR 1.20 [95% CI 0.63 to 2.28]). HFNC probably improves SGRQ scores (mean difference [MD] -7.01 [95% CI -12.27 to -1.77]) and may reduce hospitalizations (RR 0.87 [0.69 to 1.09]) compared to standard care. No significant difference was observed between HFNC and NPPV in reducing exacerbations.Conclusion: Both NPPV and HFNC reduce exacerbation risks in COPD patients compared to standard care. HFNC may offer advantages in improving quality of life.

Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To present an application of specification curve analysis-a novel analytic method that involves defining and implementing all plausible and valid analytic approaches for addressing a research question-to nutritional epidemiology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed all observational studies addressing the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality, sourced from a published systematic review, and documented variations in analytic methods (eg, choice of model, covariates, etc.). We enumerated all defensible combinations of analytic choices to produce a comprehensive list of all the ways in which the data may reasonably be analyzed. We applied specification curve analysis to data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007 to 2014 to investigate the effect of unprocessed red meat on all-cause mortality. The specification curve analysis used a random sample of all reasonable analytic specifications we sourced from primary studies. RESULTS: Among 15 publications reporting on 24 cohorts included in the systematic review on red meat and all-cause mortality, we identified 70 unique analytic methods, each including different analytic models, covariates, and operationalizations of red meat (eg, continuous vs quantiles). We applied specification curve analysis to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, including 10,661 participants. Our specification curve analysis included 1208 unique analytic specifications, of which 435 (36.0%) yielded a hazard ratio equal to or more than 1 for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality and 773 (64.0%) less than 1. The specification curve analysis yielded a median hazard ratio of 0.94 (interquartile range: 0.83-1.05). Forty-eight specifications (3.97%) were statistically significant, 40 of which indicated unprocessed red meat to reduce all-cause mortality and eight of which indicated red meat to increase mortality. CONCLUSION: We show that the application of specification curve analysis to nutritional epidemiology is feasible and presents an innovative solution to analytic flexibility.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Corticosteroids in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review, Pairwise, and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. DATA ANALYSIS: We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, -0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) or equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.

Dexamethasone doses in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. METHODS: We searched PubMed and trial registers until 23 June 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing higher (>6 mg) versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were mortality closest to 90 days; days alive without life support; and the occurrence of serious adverse events/reactions (SAEs/SARs) closest to 1 month. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis, and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included eight trials (2478 participants), of which four (1293 participants) had low risk of bias. Higher doses of dexamethasone probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality at 1 month (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), mortality closest to Day 90 (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.20), and SAEs/SARs (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02). Higher doses of dexamethasone probably increased the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support but had no effect on days alive without renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on low to moderate certainty evidence, higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone probably result in little to no difference in mortality, SAEs/SARs, and days alive without renal replacement therapy, but probably increase the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support.

Prognostic factors associated with mortality in acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) increases mortality risk, but which factors increase mortality is unknown. We aimed to perform a prognostic review of factors associated with mortality in patients with IPF. STUDY DESIGN: and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for studies that reported on the association between any prognostic factor and AE-IPF. We assessed risk of bias using the QUIPS tool. We conduced pairwise meta-analyses using REML heterogeneity estimator, and GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 35 studies in our analysis. We found that long-term supplemental oxygen at baseline (aHR 2.52 [95 % CI 1.68 to 3.80]; moderate certainty) and a diagnosis of IPF compared to non-IPF ILD (aHR 2.19 [95 % CI 1.22 to 3.92]; moderate certainty) is associated with a higher risk of death in patients with AE-IPF. A diffuse pattern on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) compared to a non-diffuse pattern (aHR 2.61 [95 % CI 1.32 to 2.90]; moderate certainty) is associated with a higher risk of death in patients with AE-IPF. We found that using corticosteroids prior to hospital admission (aHR 2.19 [95 % CI 1.26 to 3.82]; moderate certainty) and those with increased neutrophils (by % increase) in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) during the exacerbation is associated with a higher risk of death (aHR 1.02 [1.01 to 1.04]; moderate certainty). INTERPRETATION: Our results have implications for healthcare providers in making treatment decisions and prognosticating the clinical trajectory of patients, for researchers to design future interventions to improve patient trajectory, and for guideline developers in making decisions about resource allocation.

Systemic corticosteroids in fibrotic lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the available evidence for corticosteroids in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) to inform the randomised embedded multifactorial adaptive platform ILD. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science databases from inception to April 17 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that compared corticosteroids with standard care, placebo or no treatment in adult patients with fILD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We report on the change in forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and standardised MDs for continuous outcomes, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 13 229 unique citations identified, we included 10 observational studies comprising 1639 patients. Corticosteroids had an uncertain effect on mortality compared with no treatment (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.25); very low certainty evidence). The effect of corticosteroids on the rate of decline in FVC (% predicted) was uncertain when compared with no treatment (MD 4.29% (95% CI -8.26% to 16.83%); very low certainty evidence). However, corticosteroids might reduce the rate of decline in FVC in patients with non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) fILD (MD 10.89% (95% CI 5.25% to 16.53%); low certainty evidence), while an uncertain effect was observed in patients with IPF (MD -3.80% (95% CI -8.94% to 1.34%); very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in fILD is limited and of low certainty. Randomised trials are needed to address this significant research gap.

Home high flow nasal cannula for chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with chronic hypercapnia is usually treated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be an appropriate alternative. However, the efficacy of HFNC in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnia is yet to be optimally summarized. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using random effects with inverse variance methods. Randomized controlled trials involving adult COPD patients initiated on HFNC for at least one month were included. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, acute exacerbations, hospitalizations, and change in St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). We assessed the risk of bias using ROB 2.0 and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We included four randomized trials involving 440 patients. HFNC probably reduces acute exacerbations compared to standard care (RR 0.77 [95 % CI 0.66 to 0.89]; moderate certainty), suggesting 69 fewer acute exacerbations per 1000 patients. HFNC may reduce hospital admissions (RR 0.87 [95 % CI 0.69 to 1.09]; low certainty) and may lower the SGRQ score (MD 8.12 units lower [95 % CI 13.30 to 2.95 lower]; low certainty). However, HFNC may have no effect on mortality (RR 1.22 [95 % CI 0.64 to 2.35]; low certainty). CONCLUSION: HFNC probably reduces acute exacerbations and might reduce hospital admissions in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnia. However, its effect on mortality is uncertain. Future larger RCTs with longer follow-up periods are recommended to provide more robust evidence on the efficacy of HFNC in patients with COPD.

Intraoperative use of balanced crystalloids versus 0.9% saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The evidence regarding optimal crystalloid use in the perioperative period remains unclear. As the primary aim of this study, we sought to summarise the data from RCTs examining whether use of balanced crystalloids compared with 0.9% saline (saline) leads to differences in patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception until December 15, 2022, and included RCTs that intraoperatively randomised adult participants to receive either balanced fluids or saline. We pooled data using a random-effects model and present risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed individual study risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Of 5959 citations, we included 38 RCTs (n=3776 patients). Pooled analysis showed that intraoperative use of balanced fluids compared with saline had an uncertain effect on postoperative mortality analysed at the longest point of follow-up (RR 1.51, 95% CI: 0.42-5.36) and postoperative need for renal replacement therapy (RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56-1.59), both very low certainty. Furthermore, use of balanced crystalloids probably leads to a higher postoperative serum pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI: 0.04-0.06), moderate certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Use of balanced crystalloids, compared with saline, in the perioperative setting has an uncertain effect on mortality and need for renal replacement therapy but probably improves postoperative acid-base status. Further research is needed to determine whether balanced crystalloid use affects patient-important outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42022367593.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], -3.85 [95% CI, -5.24 to -2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil-modafinil (MD, -2.25 [CI, -2.85 to -1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, -2.78 [CI, -4.03 to -1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil-modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events. LIMITATIONS: There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies. CONCLUSION: Solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil-modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Impact of Allocation Concealment and Blinding in Trials Addressing Treatments for COVID-19: A Methods Study.

We aimed to assess the impact of allocation concealment and blinding on the results of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) trials, using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database (to February 2022). We identified 488 randomized trials comparing drug therapeutics with placebo or standard care in patients with COVID-19. We performed random-effects meta-regressions comparing the results of trials with and without allocation concealment and blinding of health-care providers and patients. We found that, compared with trials with allocation concealment, trials without allocation concealment may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation, but results were imprecise. We did not find compelling evidence that, compared with trials with blinding, trials without blinding produce consistently different results for mortality, mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization. We found that trials without blinding may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for hospitalizations and duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not find compelling evidence that COVID-19 trials in which health-care providers and patients are blinded produce different results from trials without blinding, but trials without allocation concealment estimate treatments to be more beneficial compared with trials with allocation concealment. Our study suggests that lack of blinding may not always bias results but that evidence users should remain skeptical of trials without allocation concealment.

Corticosteroids in Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: a Systematic Review, Pairwise and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines provide heterogenous guidance on use of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining corticosteroids in hospitalized adult patients with suspected or probable CAP. We performed a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) heterogeneity estimator. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology and the credibility of subgroups using the ICEMAN tool. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies that included 4661 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality in more severe CAP (RR 0.62 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.85]; moderate certainty) with possibly no effect in less severe CAP (RR 1.08 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.42]; low certainty). We found a non-linear dose-response relationship between corticosteroids and mortality, suggesting an optimal dose of approximately 6 mg of dexamethasone (or equivalent) for a duration of therapy of 7 days (RR 0.44 [95% 0.30 to 0.66]). Corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.42 to 74] and probably reduce intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.97]) (both moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may reduce the duration of hospitalization and ICU stay (both low certainty). Corticosteroids may increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.76 [95% CI 1.46 to 2.14]) (low certainty). CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality in patients with more severe CAP, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission.

Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Adult Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several recently published randomized controlled trials have evaluated various noninvasive oxygenation strategies for the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which available noninvasive oxygen strategies are effective for acute hypoxic respiratory failure? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Research Square was conducted from inception to October 1, 2022. A random effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed, and the results are presented using absolute risk difference per 1,000 patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization and ICU stay, ventilator-free days, and level of comfort are reported. RESULTS: Thirty-six trials (7,046 patients) were included. It was found that helmet CPAP probably reduces mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT) (231 fewer deaths per 1,000; 95% CI, 126-273 fewer) (moderate certainty). A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000; 95% CI, 40.5-157.5 fewer) (moderate certainty). All noninvasive oxygenation strategies may reduce the duration of hospitalization as compared with SOT (low certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation (4.84 days fewer; 95% CI, 2.33-7.36 days fewer) and helmet CPAP (1.74 days fewer; 95% CI, 4.49 fewer-1.01 more) may reduce the duration of ICU stay as compared with SOT (both low certainty). SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation and no different in comfort compared with an HFNC (both low certainty). INTERPRETATION: A helmet interface for noninvasive ventilation probably reduces mortality and the risk of mechanical ventilation, as well as the duration of hospital and ICU stay. An HFNC probably reduces the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and may be as comfortable as SOT. Further research is necessary to understand the role of these interfaces in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Anti-epithelial-derived cytokines for severe asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Therapies directed against epithelial-derived cytokines, often referred to as alarmins, have been studied in large randomized trials, and reports suggest possible benefit for non-type 2 as well as type 2 severe asthma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process, and Web of Science databases from inception to March 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing antialarmin therapy in severe asthma. Results use relative risk (RR) values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we report mean difference (MD) values and 95% CIs. We define high eosinophils as ≥300 cells/µL and low eosinophils as <300 cells/µL. We used Cochrane-endorsed RoB 2.0 software to assess the risk of bias of trials, and we used the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (aka GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials including 2391 patients. Antialarmins probably reduce annualized exacerbation rates in patients with high eosinophils (RR 0.33 [95% CI 0.28 to 0.38]; moderate certainty). Antialarmins may reduce this rate in patients with low eosinophils (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.38 to 0.90]; low certainty). Antialarmins improve FEV1 in patients with high eosinophils (MD 218.5 mL [95% CI 160.2 to 276.7]; high certainty). Antialarmin therapy probably does not improve FEV1 in patients with low eosinophils (MD 68.8 mL [95% CI 22.4 to 115.2]; moderate certainty). Antialarmins reduce blood eosinophils, total IgE, and fractional excretion of nitric oxide across studied subjects. CONCLUSION: Antialarmins are effective at improving lung function and probably reduce exacerbations in patients with severe asthma and blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL. The effect on patients with lower eosinophils is less certain.

Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%. CONCLUSION: We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.