Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

A Genome-Wide Association Study of Serum Metabolite Profiles in Septic Shock Patients.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess whether genetic associations with metabolite concentrations in septic shock patients could be used to identify pathways of potential importance for understanding sepsis pathophysiology. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort studies of septic shock patients. SETTING: All participants who were admitted to 27 participating hospital sites in three countries (Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) were eligible for inclusion. PATIENTS: Adult, critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock (n = 230) who were a subset of the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01448109). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A genome-wide association study was conducted for a range of serum metabolite levels for participants. Genome-wide significant associations (p ≤ 5 × 10-8) were found for the two major ketone bodies (3-hydroxybutyrate [rs2456680] and acetoacetate [rs2213037] and creatinine (rs6851961). One of these single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (rs2213037) was located in the alcohol dehydrogenase cluster of genes, which code for enzymes related to the metabolism of acetoacetate and, therefore, presents a plausible association for this metabolite. None of the three SNPs showed strong associations with risk of sepsis, 28- or 90-day mortality, or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score (a measure of sepsis severity). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the genetic associations with metabolites may reflect a starvation response rather than processes involved in sepsis pathophysiology. However, our results require further investigation and replication in both healthy and diseased cohorts including those of different ancestry.

REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to - Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03374800.

Corrigendum to "Statistical analysis plan for the BLING III study: a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent ß-lactam antibiotic infusion in critically ill patients with sepsis" [Crit Care Resusc 23(3) (2021) 273-284].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.51893/2021.3.oa4.].

Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial from India.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months. SETTING: 9 hospitals across India. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment). INTERVENTION: Participants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone. MAIN OUTCOME: Proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Participants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2020/05/025067.

Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroids for patients with septic shock in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine whether adjunctive hydrocortisone reduced healthcare expenditure and was cost-effective compared with placebo in New Zealand patients in the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial. DESIGN: This is a health economic analysis using data linkage to New Zealand Ministry of Health databases to determine resource use, costs, and cost-effectiveness for a 24-month period. SETTING: The study was conducted in New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Patients with septic shock were randomised to receive a 7-day continuous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone or placebo in the ADRENAL trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Healthcare expenditure was associated with all hospital admissions, emergency department presentations, outpatient visits, and pharmacy expenditure. Effectiveness outcomes included mortality at 6 months and 24 months and quality of life at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed with reference to quality-adjusted life years gained at 6 months and life years gained at 24 months. RESULTS: Of 3800 patients in the ADRENAL trial, 419 (11.0%) were eligible, and 405 (96.7% of those eligible) were included. The mean total costs per patient over 24 months were $143,627 ± 100,890 and $143,772 ± 97,117 for the hydrocortisone and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.99). Intensive care unit costs for the index admission were $50,492 and $62,288 per patient for the hydrocortisone and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.09). The mean number of quality-adjusted life years gained at 6 months and mean number of life years gained at 24 months was not significantly different by treatment group, and the probability of hydrocortisone being cost-effective was 55% at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In New Zealand, adjunctive hydrocortisone did not reduce total healthcare expenditure or improve outcomes compared with placebo in patients with septic shock.

An evaluation of factors that may influence clinicians' decisions not to enroll eligible patients into randomized trials in critical care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between intensive care unit (ICU) characteristics and clinicians' decision to decline eligible patients for randomization into a multicentered pragmatic comparative-effectiveness controlled trial. METHODS: Screening logs from the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Septic Shock Trial (ADRENAL) and site-level data from the College of Intensive Care Medicine and Australia New Zealand Intensive Care Society were examined. The effects of ICU characteristics such as tertiary academic status, research coordinator availability, number of admissions, and ICU affiliations on clinicians declining to randomize eligible patients were calculated using mixed effects logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: There were 21,818 patients screened for inclusion in the ADRENAL trial at 69 sites across five countries, out of which 5,501 were eligible, 3,800 were randomized and 659 eligible patients were declined for randomization by the treating clinician. The proportion of eligible patients declined by clinicians at individual ICUs ranged from 0 to41%. In the multivariable model, none of the ICU characteristics were significantly associated with higher clinician decline rate. CONCLUSIONS: Neither tertiary academic status, nor other site-level variables were significantly associated with increased rate of clinicians declining eligible patients.

The relationship between adrenocortical candidate gene expression and clinical response to hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock.

PURPOSE: To determine if adrenocortical gene expression is associated with clinical outcomes or response to corticosteroid treatment in septic shock. METHODS: A pre-specified nested cohort study of a randomised controlled trial of hydrocortisone compared to placebo in septic shock. Blood was collected for RNAseq analysis prior to treatment with hydrocortisone or placebo. The expression of adrenocortical candidate genes related to pituitary releasing hormones, mineralocorticoid and glucocorticoid receptors, intracellular glucocorticoid metabolism and transport proteins was measured. RESULTS: From May 2014 to April 2017, 671 patients were enrolled in the nested cohort study, from which 494 samples were available for analysis. We found no evidence of an association between candidate gene expression levels and either 90-day mortality, 28-day mortality or time to shock reversal. We observed evidence of a significant interaction between expression and treatment group for time to shock reversal in two genes; GLCCI1 (HR 3.81, 95%CI 0.57-25.47 vs. HR 0.64, 95%CI 0.13-3.07 for hydrocortisone and placebo respectively, p for interaction 0.008) and BHSD1 (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.28-1.09 vs. HR 1.32 95%CI 0.67-2.60, p for interaction 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with septic shock, there is no association between adrenocortical candidate gene expression and mortality. Patients with higher expression of GLCCI1 who received hydrocortisone achieved shock resolution faster than those receiving placebo; conversely, patients who had higher expression of BHSD1 who received hydrocortisone achieved shock resolution slower than those who received placebo. Variation in gene expression may be a mechanism for heterogeneity of treatment response to corticosteroids in septic shock.

Statistical analysis plan for the BLING III study: a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent ß-lactam antibiotic infusion in critically ill patients with sepsis.

Background: The ß-Lactam Infusion Group (BLING) III study is a prospective, multicentre, open, phase 3 randomised controlled trial comparing continuous infusion with intermittent infusion of ß-lactam antibiotics in 7000 critically ill patients with sepsis. Objective: To describe a statistical analysis plan for the BLING III study. Methods: The statistical analysis plan was designed by the trial statistician and chief investigators and approved by the BLING III management committee before the completion of data collection. Statistical analyses for primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes and planned subgroup analyses are described in detail. Interim analysis by the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee (DSMC) has been conducted in accordance with a pre-specified DSMC charter. Results and conclusions: The statistical analysis plan for the BLING III study is published before completion of data collection and unblinding to minimise analysis bias and facilitate public access and transparent analysis and reporting of study findings. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT03212990.

The cost-effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroids for patients with septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hydrocortisone is a cost-effective treatment for patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Data linkage-based cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: New South Wales and Queensland intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Patients with septic shock randomly assigned to treatment with hydrocortisone or placebo in the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality of life at 6 months using the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire. Data on hospital resource use and costs were obtained by linking the ADRENAL dataset to government administrative health databases. Clinical outcomes included mortality, health-related quality of life, and quality-adjusted life-years gained; economic outcomes included hospital resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness from the health care payer perspective. We also assessed cost-effectiveness by sex. To increase the precision of cost-effectiveness estimates, we conducted unrestricted bootstrapping. RESULTS: Of 3800 patients in the ADRENAL trial, 1772 (46.6%) were eligible and 1513 (85.4% of those eligible) were included. There was no difference between hydrocortisone or placebo groups in regards to mortality (218/742 [29.4%] v 227/759 [29.9%]; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.12; P = 0.47), mean number of QALYs gained (0.10 ± 0.09 v 0.10 ± 0.09; P = 0.52), or total hospital costs (A$73 515 ± 61 376 v A$69 748 ± 61 793; mean difference, A$3767; 95% CI, -A$2891 to A$10 425; P = 0.27). The incremental cost of hydrocortisone was A$1 254 078 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In females, hydrocortisone was cost-effective in 46.2% of bootstrapped replications and in males it was cost-effective in 2.7% of bootstrapped replications. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive hydrocortisone did not significantly affect longer term mortality, health-related quality of life, health care resource use or costs, and is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus standard personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers: the HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation(HOPE) trial: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and standard personal protective equipment (PPE) compared to the use of standard personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infections among frontline healthcare workers(HCWs) in India TRIAL DESIGN: HOPE is an investigator initiated multi-centre open-label parallel group randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs currently working in an environment with direct exposure to patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection are eligible to participate in the trial. The trial aims to be conducted across 20-30 centres (public and private hospitals) in India. HCWs who decline consent, who have a confirmed COVID-19 infection, those who are already on chloroquine/HCQ for any indication, or if pregnant or breast-feeding, or have known QT prolongation or are on medications that when taken with HCQ can prolong the QTc will be excluded. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The interventions to be compared in this trial are standard practice (use of recommended PPE) and HCQ plus standard practice. In the standard practice arm, HCWs will use recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. They will be discouraged from taking HCQ to prevent contamination and contacted every week for the duration of the study to ascertain if they have taken any HCQ. Any such use will be reported as a protocol violation. In the intervention arm, HCWs will be administered 800mg of HCQ as a loading dose on the day of randomization (as two 400mg doses 12hrs apart) and subsequently continued on 400mg once a week for 12 weeks. This will be in addition to the use of recommended PPE as per institutional guidelines and based on their roles. HCWs will collect the drug once every week from designated research and pharmacy staff at site. A weekly phone reminder will be provided to participants in this arm to ensure compliance. An ECG will be performed between 4-6 weeks in this arm and if the QTc is prolonged (greater than 450milliseconds), the drug will be stopped. Follow-up will however continue. Participants in both arms will receive a weekly phone call for evaluation of the primary outcome, to monitor protocol compliance and development of any adverse events (in the HCQ group). MAIN OUTCOMES: Participants will be followed on a weekly basis. The primary outcome is the proportion of HCWs developing laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection within 6 months of randomization. We will also evaluate a number of secondary outcomes, including hospitalization related to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, intensive care unit or high-dependency unit admission due to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection, all-cause mortality, need for organ support ( non-invasive or invasive ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy), ICU and hospital length of stay, readmission, days off work and treatment-related adverse events. RANDOMISATION: Randomisation will be conducted through a password-protected, secure website using a central, computer-based randomisation program. Randomisation will be stratified by participating institutions and by the role of HCW - nursing, medical and other. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either standard practice only or HCQ plus standard practice. Allocation concealment is maintained by central web-based randomisation BLINDING (MASKING): This is an unblinded study: study assigned treatment will be known to the research team and participant. Bias will be mitigated through an objective end point (laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection). NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 6,950 HCWs will be enrolled (3475 to the intervention) and (3475 to the standard practice group) to detect a 25% relative reduction, or 2.5% absolute reduction, in the infection rate from an estimated baseline infection rate of 10%, with 80% statistical power using a two-sided test at 5% level of significance. Available data from China and Italy indicate that the rate of infection among frontline healthcare workers varies between 4% to 12%. We therefore assumed a baseline infection rate of 10% among HCWs. This sample size allows for a potential loss to follow-up rate of 10% and a potential non-compliance rate of 10% in both the treatment and control arms. TRIAL STATUS: HOPE protocol version 3.0 dated June 3rd 2020. Recruitment started on 29th June 2020 and currently 56 participants have been enrolled. Planned completion of enrolment is January 31st 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2020/05/025067 (prospectively registered) Date of registration: 6th May 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expedited dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Septic Shock: A Genomewide Association Study and Polygenic Risk Score Analysis.

Previous genetic association studies have failed to identify loci robustly associated with sepsis, and there have been no published genetic association studies or polygenic risk score analyses of patients with septic shock, despite evidence suggesting genetic factors may be involved. We systematically collected genotype and clinical outcome data in the context of a randomized controlled trial from patients with septic shock to enrich the presence of disease-associated genetic variants. We performed genomewide association studies of susceptibility and mortality in septic shock using 493 patients with septic shock and 2442 population controls, and polygenic risk score analysis to assess genetic overlap between septic shock risk/mortality with clinically relevant traits. One variant, rs9489328, located in AL589740.1 noncoding RNA, was significantly associated with septic shock (p = 1.05 × 10-10); however, it is likely a false-positive. We were unable to replicate variants previously reported to be associated (p < 1.00 × 10-6 in previous scans) with susceptibility to and mortality from sepsis. Polygenic risk scores for hematocrit and granulocyte count were negatively associated with 28-day mortality (p = 3.04 × 10-3; p = 2.29 × 10-3), and scores for C-reactive protein levels were positively associated with susceptibility to septic shock (p = 1.44 × 10-3). Results suggest that common variants of large effect do not influence septic shock susceptibility, mortality and resolution; however, genetic predispositions to clinically relevant traits are significantly associated with increased susceptibility and mortality in septic individuals.

Health-related quality of life in survivors of septic shock: 6-month follow-up from the ADRENAL trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of hydrocortisone treatment and illness severity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months in septic shock survivors from the ADRENAL trial. METHODS: Using the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) at 6 months after randomization we assessed HRQoL in patient subgroups defined by hydrocortisone or placebo treatment, gender, illness severity (APACHE II < or ≥ 25), and severity of shock (baseline peak catecholamine doses < or ≥ 15 mcg/min). Additionally, in subgroups defined by post-randomisation variables; time to shock reversal (days), treatment with renal replacement therapy (RRT), and presence of bacteremia. RESULTS: At 6 months, there were 2521 survivors. Of these 2151 patients (85.3%-1080 hydrocortisone and 1071 placebo) completed 6-month follow-up. Overall, at 6 months the mean EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS) was 70.8, mean utility score 59.4. Between 15% and 30% of patients reported moderate to severe problems in any given HRQoL domain. There were no differences in any EQ-5D-5L domain in patients who received hydrocortisone vs. placebo, nor in the mean VAS (p = 0.6161), or mean utility score (p = 0.7611). In all patients combined, males experienced lower pain levels compared to females [p = 0.0002). Neither higher severity of illness or shock impacted reported HRQoL. In post-randomisation subgroups, longer time to shock reversal was associated with increased problems with mobility (p = < 0.0001]; self-care (p = 0.0.0142), usual activities (p = <0.0001] and pain (p = 0.0384). Amongst those treated with RRT, more patients reported increased problems with mobility (p = 0.0307) and usual activities (p = 0.0048) compared to those not treated. Bacteraemia was not associated with worse HRQoL in any domains of the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one fifth of septic shock survivors report moderate to extreme problems in HRQoL domains at 6 months. Hydrocortisone treatment for septic shock was not associated with improved HRQoL at 6 months. Female gender was associated with worse pain at 6 months.

Plasma Cortisol, Aldosterone, and Ascorbic Acid Concentrations in Patients with Septic Shock Do Not Predict Treatment Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality. A Nested Cohort Study.

Rationale: Whether biomarkers can identify subgroups of patients with septic shock with differential treatment responses to hydrocortisone is unknown.Objectives: To determine if there is heterogeneity in effect for hydrocortisone on mortality, shock resolution, and other clinical outcomes based on baseline cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid concentrations.Methods: From May 2014 to April 2017, we obtained serum samples from 529 patients with septic shock from 22 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand.Measurements and Main Results: There were no significant interactions between the association with 90-day mortality and treatment with either hydrocortisone or placebo for total cortisol (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.16 vs. OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13; P = 0.70), free cortisol (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38 vs. OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P = 0.75), aldosterone (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05 vs. OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.04; P = 0.99), or ascorbic acid (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.39 vs. OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.22; P = 0.70), respectively. Similar results were observed for the association with shock resolution. Elevated free cortisol was significantly associated with 90-day mortality (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.27; P = 0.04), but total cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid were not.Conclusions: In patients with septic shock, there was no heterogeneity in effect of adjunctive hydrocortisone on mortality, shock resolution, or other clinical outcomes based on cortisol, aldosterone, and ascorbic acid concentrations. Plasma aldosterone and ascorbic acid concentrations are not associated with outcome.

Does asymmetry in patient recruitment in large critical care trials follow the Pareto principle?

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) may be hindered by slow recruitment rates, particularly in critically ill patients. While statistical models to predict recruitment rates have been described, no systematic assessment has been conducted of the distribution of recruitment across sites, temporal trends in site participation and impact of competing trials on patient recruitment. METHODS: We used recruitment and screening logs from the SAFE, NICE-SUGAR, RENAL, CHEST and ADRENAL trials, five of the largest critical care RCTs. We quantified the extent of recruitment asymmetry between sites using Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients and assessed whether the recruitment distribution across sites follow the Pareto principle, which states that 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. Peak recruitment rates and growth in participating sites were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 25,412 patients were randomised in 99 intensive care units (ICUs) for the five trials. Distribution of recruitment was asymmetric, with a small number of ICUs recruiting a large proportion of the patients. The Gini coefficients ranged from 0.14 to 0.52. The time to peak recruitment rate ranged from 7 to 41 months and was variable (7, 31, 41, 10 and 40 months). Over time, the proportion of recruitment at non-tertiary ICUs increased from 15% to 34%. CONCLUSIONS: There is asymmetry of recruitment with a small proportion of ICUs recruiting a large proportion of patients. The distributions of recruitment were not consistent with the Pareto principle. There has been increasing participation of non-tertiary ICUs in clinical trials.

Hydrocortisone Compared with Placebo in Patients with Septic Shock Satisfying the Sepsis-3 Diagnostic Criteria and APROCCHSS Study Inclusion Criteria: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ADRENAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Two recent randomized controlled trials (Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock [ADRENAL] and Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock [APROCCHSS]) of corticosteroids in patients with septic shock reported different treatment effects on 90-day mortality. Both trials enrolled patients who met the criteria for septic shock using the second international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-2), but the APROCCHSS trial mandated a greater severity of shock as an inclusion criterion. METHODS: The authors conducted post hoc sensitivity analyses of the ADRENAL trial to determine the effects of hydrocortisone versus placebo in subgroups selected using third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) diagnostic criteria or APROCCHSS inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There were 1,950 subjects (973 hydrocortisone and 977 placebo) who met the Sepsis-3 criteria (ADRENAL-Sepsis-3 cohort) and 905 patients (455 hydrocortisone and 450 placebo) who met the APROCCHSS criteria (ADRENAL-APROCCHSS cohort). At 90 days after randomization, in the ADRENAL-Sepsis-3 cohort, 312 of 963 (32.4%) and 337 of 958 (35.2%) patients assigned to hydrocortisone and placebo, respectively, had died (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = 0.166). The corresponding figures for the ADRENAL-APROCCHSS cohorts were 187 of 453 (41.3%) and 200 of 445 (44.9%), respectively (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.17; P = 0.303). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to death between the groups during the 90 days after randomization (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; P = 0.082 for ADRENAL-Sepsis-3; and hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.06; P = 0.156 for ADRENAL-APROCCHSS cohorts). In both cohorts, patients assigned to hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock. In the ADRENAL-Sepsis-3 cohort, patients assigned to hydrocortisone had an increase in the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (57.0 ± 37.2 vs. 53.7 ± 38.2 days; 95% CI, 0.40 to 7.04; P = 0.028) and the number of days alive and free of the intensive care unit (54.3 ± 36.0 vs. 51.0 ± 37.1; 95% CI, 0.82 to 7.24; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In a post hoc analysis of the ADRENAL trial participants who fulfilled either the Sepsis-3 or the APROCCHSS inclusion criteria, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in a lower 90-day mortality than placebo in septic shock.

A protocol for a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent ß-lactam antibiotic infusion in critically ill patients with sepsis: BLING III.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: ß-Lactam antibiotics display a time-dependent mechanism of action, with evidence suggesting improved outcomes when administering these drugs via continuous infusion compared with standard intermittent infusion. However, there is no phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence to support one method of administration over another in critically ill patients with sepsis. DESIGN AND SETTING: The ß-Lactam Infusion Group (BLING) III study is a prospective, multicentre, open, phase 3 RCT to compare continuous infusion with standard intermittent infusion of ß-lactam antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis. The study will be conducted in about 70 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Belgium and selected other countries, from 2018 to 2021. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: BLING III will recruit 7000 critically ill patients with sepsis being treated with one of two ß-lactam antibiotics (piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem) to receive the ß-lactam antibiotic by either continuous or intermittent infusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is allcause mortality within 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical cure at Day 14 after randomisation, new acquisition, colonisation or infection with a multiresistant organism or Clostridium difficile diarrhoea up to 14 days after randomisation, all-cause ICU mortality and all-cause hospital mortality. Tertiary outcomes are ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of renal replacement therapy up to 90 days after randomisation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The BLING III study will compare the effect on 90-day mortality of ß-lactam antibiotics administered via continuous versus intermittent infusion in 7000 critically ill patients with sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03213990).

Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P<0.001). Patients in the hydrocortisone group had a shorter duration of the initial episode of mechanical ventilation than those in the placebo group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 3 to 18] vs. 7 days [interquartile range, 3 to 24]; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22; P<0.001), but taking into account episodes of recurrence of ventilation, there were no significant differences in the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Fewer patients in the hydrocortisone group than in the placebo group received a blood transfusion (37.0% vs. 41.7%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.004). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the number of days alive and out of the hospital, the recurrence of mechanical ventilation, the rate of renal-replacement therapy, and the incidence of new-onset bacteremia or fungemia. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADRENAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01448109 .).

Statistical analysis plan for the Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial.

BACKGROUND: The Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial, a 3800-patient, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, will be the largest study to date of corticosteroid therapy in patients with septic shock. OBJECTIVE: To describe a statistical analysis plan (SAP) and make it public before completion of patient recruitment and data collection. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial, to avoid analysis bias arising from knowledge of study findings. METHODS: The SAP was designed by the chief investigators and statisticians and approved by the ADRENAL management committee. All authors were blind to treatment allocation and to the unblinded data produced during two interim analyses conducted by the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The data shells were produced from a previously published protocol. Statistical analyses are described in broad detail. Trial outcomes were selected and categorised into primary, secondary and tertiary outcomes, and appropriate statistical comparisons between groups are planned and described in a way that is transparent, available to the public, verifiable and determined before completion of data collection. RESULTS: We developed a standard SAP for the ADRENAL trial, and have produced a trial profile outline and list of mock tables. We describe analyses of baseline characteristics, processes of care, measures of efficacy and outcomes. Six pre-specified subgroups were defined, and statistical comparisons between groups in these subgroups are described. CONCLUSION: We have developed an SAP for the ADRENAL trial. This plan accords with high-quality standards of internal validity to minimise analysis bias.