Health-related quality of life trajectories in critical illness: Protocol for a Monte Carlo simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a patient-centred outcome increasingly used as a secondary outcome in critical care research. It may cover several important dimensions of clinical status in intensive care unit (ICU) patients that arguably elude other more easily quantified outcomes such as mortality. Poor associations with harder outcomes, conflicting data on HRQoL in critically ill compared to the background population, and paradoxical effects on HRQoL and mortality complicate the current operationalisation in critical care trials. This protocol outlines a simulation study that will gauge if the areas under the HRQoL trajectories could be a viable alternative. METHODS: We will gauge the behaviour of the proposed HRQoL operationalisation through Monte Carlo simulations, under clinical scenarios that reflect a broad critical care population eligible for inclusion in a large pragmatic trial. We will simulate 15,360 clinical scenarios based on a full factorial design with the following seven simulation parameters: number of patients per arm, relative mortality reduction in the interventional arm, acceleration of HRQoL improvement in the interventional arm, the relative improvement in final HRQoL in the interventional arm, dampening effect of mortality on HRQoL values at discharge from the ICU, proportion of so-called mortality benefiters in the interventional arm and mortality trajectory shape. For each clinical scenario, we will simulate 100,000 two-arm trials with 1:1 randomisation. HRQoL will be sampled fortnightly after ICU discharge. Outcomes will include HRQoL in survivors and all patients at the end of follow-up; mean areas under the HRQoL trajectories in both arms; and mean difference between areas under the HRQoL trajectories and single-sampled HRQoLs at the end of follow-up. DISCUSSION: In the outlined simulation study, we aim to assess whether the area under the HRQoL trajectory curve could be a candidate for reconciling the seemingly paradoxical effects on improved mortality and reduced HRQoL while remaining sensitive to early or accelerated improvement in patient outcomes. The resultant insights will inform subsequent methodological work on prudent collection and statistical analysis of such data from real critically ill patients.

Real-world causal evidence for planned predictive enrichment in critical care trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness due, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Although causal evidence from rich real-world critical care can help overcome these challenges by informing predictive enrichment, no overview exists. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, systematically searching 10 general and speciality journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We collected trial metadata on 22 variables including recruitment period, intervention type and early stopping (including reasons) as well as data on the use of causal evidence from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment. RESULTS: We screened 9020 records and included 316 unique RCTs with a total of 268,563 randomised participants. One hundred seventy-three (55%) trials tested drug interventions, 101 (32%) management strategies and 42 (13%) devices. The median duration of enrolment was 2.2 (IQR: 1.3-3.4) years, and 83% of trials randomised less than 1000 participants. Thirty-six trials (11%) were restricted to COVID-19 patients. Of the 55 (17%) trials that stopped early, 23 (42%) used predefined rules; futility, slow enrolment and safety concerns were the commonest stopping reasons. None of the included RCTs had used causal evidence from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment. CONCLUSION: Work is needed to harness the rich multiverse of critical care data and establish its utility in critical care RCTs. Such work will likely need to leverage methodology from interventional and analytical epidemiology as well as data science.

Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial: Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.

Non-response for health-related quality of life outcomes in ICU patients: A systematic review of the reporting in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is frequently assessed in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in the intensive care unit (ICU), but data are limited regarding the proportions of patients without responses or not surviving to HRQoL follow-up and the handling of this. We aimed to describe the extent and pattern of missing HRQoL data in intensive care trials and describe how these data and deaths were handled statistically. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following a published protocol. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for RCTs involving adult ICU patients reporting HRQoL as an outcome and excluded RCTs unobtainable in full text. We performed risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. RESULTS: We included 196 outcomes from 88 RCTs published in the years 2002-2022; the numbers of patients alive and eligible to respond HRQoL were reported in 76% of trials. At follow-up, median 27% (interquartile range 14%-39%) of patients had died, and median 20% (9%-38%) of survivors did not respond across outcomes. Analyses of 80% of outcomes were restricted to complete cases only. The handling of non-survivors in analyses were reported for 46% of outcomes, with 26% of all outcomes reported as including non-survivors (using the value zero or the worst possible score). CONCLUSION: For HRQoL outcomes in ICU trials, we found that mortality at time of follow-up was high and non-response among survivors frequent. The reporting and statistical handling of these issues were insufficient, which may have biased results.

New-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill adult patients-an SSAI clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Acute or new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill adult patients, and observational data suggests that NOAF is associated to adverse outcomes. METHODS: We prepared this guideline according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We posed the following clinical questions: (1) what is the better first-line pharmacological agent for the treatment of NOAF in critically ill adult patients?, (2) should we use direct current (DC) cardioversion in critically ill adult patients with NOAF and hemodynamic instability caused by atrial fibrillation?, (3) should we use anticoagulant therapy in critically ill adult patients with NOAF?, and (4) should critically ill adult patients with NOAF receive follow-up after discharge from hospital? We assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality, thromboembolic events, and adverse events. Patients and relatives were part of the guideline panel. RESULTS: The quantity and quality of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults was very limited, and we did not identify any relevant direct or indirect evidence from randomized clinical trials for the prespecified PICO questions. We were able to propose one weak recommendation against routine use of therapeutic dose anticoagulant therapy, and one best practice statement for routine follow-up by a cardiologist after hospital discharge. We were not able to propose any recommendations on the better first-line pharmacological agent or whether to use DC cardioversion in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability induced by NOAF. An electronic version of this guideline in layered and interactive format is available in MAGIC: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7197. CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults is very limited and not informed by direct evidence from randomized clinical trials. Practice variation appears considerable.

Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials has received increased focus, including in intensive care trials, but the frequency, method and extent is unknown. This meta-epidemiological study investigated patient and public involvement in contemporary, large ICU trials. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed for large (≥225 randomised patients), contemporary trials (published between 1 January 2019 and 31 January 2022) assessing interventions in adult patients in ICU settings. Abstracts and full-text articles were assessed independently and in duplicate. Data were extracted using a pre-defined, pilot-tested data extraction form with details on trials, patient and public involvement including categories and numbers of individuals involved, methods of involvement, and trial stage(s) with involvement. Trials authors were contacted as necessary. RESULTS: We included 100 trials, with 18 using patient and public involvement; these were larger and conducted in more centres than trials without patient and public involvement. Among trials with patient and public involvement, patients (in 14/18 trials), clinicians (13 trials), and family members (12 trials) were primarily involved, mainly in the development of research design (15 trials) and development of research focus (13 trials) stages and mostly by discussion (12 trials) and solo interviews (10 trials). A median of 65 individuals (range 1-6894) were involved. CONCLUSIONS: We found patient and public involvement in a fifth of large, contemporary ICU trials. Primarily patients, families, and clinicians were included, particularly in the trial planning stages and mostly through interviews and discussions. Increased patient and public involvement in ICU trials is warranted.

Functional and cognitive rehabilitation interventions during intensive care admission: A protocol for a systematic integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Long-term cognitive impairment occurs in up to 60% of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Early use of functional and cognitive rehabilitation interventions, while patients are still in ICU, may reduce cognitive decline. We aim to describe the functional and cognitive interventions used during the ICU stay, the healthcare professionals providing interventions, and the potential impact on functional and cognitive rehabilitation. METHOD: In this integrative systematic review, we will include empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed- and multiple-methods studies assessing the use of functional and cognitive rehabilitation provided in ICU. We will identify studies in relevant electronic databases from 2012 to 2022, which will be screened for eligibility by at least two reviewers. Literature reported as narrative reviews and editorials will be excluded. We will assess the impact of interventions evaluating a cognitive and functional function, quality of life, and all-cause mortality at 6-12 months after ICU discharge. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias Tool will be used for assessing risk of bias in clinical trials. For observational studies, we will use the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Furthermore, we will use the critical appraisal skills programme for qualitative studies and the mixed methods appraisal tool for mixed methods studies. We will construct four matrices, including results describing which ICU patients and healthcare professionals were engaged in rehabilitation, which interventions were included in early rehabilitation in ICU, the potential impact on patient outcomes of rehabilitation interventions provided in ICU and a narrative synthesis of themes. A summary of the main results will be reported using modified GRADE methodology. IMPACT: This integrative review will inform the feasibility randomised clinical trial testing the development of a complex intervention targeting functional and cognitive rehabilitation for patients in ICU.

Association between days alive without life support/out of hospital and health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Trials in critically ill patients increasingly focus on days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive out of hospital (DAOOH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). DAWOLS and DAOOH convey more information than mortality and are simpler and faster to collect than HRQoL. However, whether these outcomes are associated with HRQoL is uncertain. We thus aimed to assess the associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH and long-term HRQoL. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial including adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) trial including adult intensive care unit patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Associations between DAWOLS and DAOOH at day 28 and 90 and long-term HRQoL (after 6 or 12 months) using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level survey (EQ VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) were assessed using flexible models and evaluated using measures of fit and prediction adequacy in both datasets (comprising internal performance and external validation), non-parametric correlation coefficients and graphical presentations. RESULTS: We found no strong associations between DAWOLS or DAOOH and HRQoL in survivors at HRQoL-follow-up (615 and 1476 patients, respectively). There was substantial variability in outcomes, and predictions from the best fitted models were poor both internally and externally in the other trial dataset, which also showed inadequate calibration. Moderate associations were found when including non-survivors, although predictions remained uncertain and calibration inadequate. CONCLUSION: DAWOLS and DAOOH were poorly associated with HRQoL in adult survivors of severe or critical illness included in the COVID STEROID 2 and HOT-ICU trials.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline.

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Health-related quality of life and days alive without life support or out of hospital: Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mortality is often the primary outcome in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill patients. Due to increased awareness on survivors after critical illness and outcomes other than mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and days alive without life support (DAWOLS) or days alive and out of hospital (DAAOOH) are increasingly being used. DAWOLS and DAAOOH convey more information than mortality, are easier to collect than HRQoL, and are usually assessed at earlier time points, which may be preferable in some situations. However, the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL are uncertain. METHODS: We will assess associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH at day 28 and 90 (independent variables/predictors) and HRQoL assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (EQ-VAS and EQ-5D-5L index values) at 6 or 12 months (dependent variables) in two RCTs: the COVID STEROID 2 RCT conducted in adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia and the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the Intensive Care Unit (HOT-ICU) RCT conducted in adult intensive care patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. We will describe associations using best-fitting fractional polynomial transformations separately in each dataset, with the resulting models presented and assessed in both datasets graphically and using measures of fit and prediction adequacy (i.e., internal performance and external validation). We will use multiple imputation if missingness exceeds 5%. DISCUSSION: The outlined study will provide important knowledge on the associations between DAWOLS-DAAOOH and HRQoL in adult critically ill patients, which may help researchers and clinical trialists prioritise and select outcomes in future RCTs conducted in this population.

Causal inference for planning randomised critical care trials: Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials in critical care are prone to inconclusiveness owing, in part, to undue optimism about effect sizes and suboptimal accounting for heterogeneous treatment effects. Planned predictive enrichment based on secondary critical care data (often very rich with respect to both data types and temporal granularity) and causal inference methods may help overcome these challenges, but no overview exists about their use to this end. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review to assess the extent and nature of the use of causal inference from secondary data for planned predictive enrichment of randomised clinical trials in critical care. We will systematically search 10 general and specialty journals for reports published on or after 1 January 2018, of randomised clinical trials enrolling adult critically ill patients. We will collect trial metadata (e.g., recruitment period and phase) and, when available, information pertaining to the focus of the review (predictive enrichment based on causal inference estimates from secondary data): causal inference methods, estimation techniques and software used; types of patient populations; data provenance, types and models; and the availability of the data (public or not). The results will be reported in a descriptive manner. DISCUSSION: The outlined scoping review aims to assess the use of causal inference methods and secondary data for planned predictive enrichment in randomised critical care trials. This will help guide methodological improvements to increase the utility, and facilitate the use, of causal inference estimates when planning such trials in the future.

Development of a core outcome set for general intensive care unit patients-A protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Different outcomes are reported in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and no core outcome set (COS) is available for ICU patients in general. Accordingly, we aim to develop a COS for ICU patients in general. METHODS: The COS will be developed in accordance with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, using a modified Delphi consensus process and semi-structured interviews involving adults who have survived acute admission to an ICU, family members, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders. The modified Delphi process will include two steps. Step 1: conduction of a modified Delphi survey, developed and informed by combining the outputs of a literature search of outcomes in previous COSs and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. We plan at least two survey rounds to obtain consensus and refine the COS. Step 2: a consensus process regarding instruments or definitions to be recommended for the measurements of the outcomes selected in Step 1. A 'patient and public involvement panel' consisting of a smaller group of patients, family members, clinicians and researchers will be included in the development, analysis and interpretation of the COS. DISCUSSION: The outlined multiple method studies will establish a COS for ICU patients in general, which may be used to increase the standardisation and comparability of results of RCTs conducted in patients in the ICU setting.

Patient and public involvement in contemporary large intensive care trials: Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) has increased in recent years but remains the exception rather than the rule. We aim to assess the frequency and extent of PPI in large, contemporary RCTs conducted in an intensive care setting. METHODS AND DESIGN: We will conduct a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs conducted in intensive care settings published since 2019 and assess their use of PPI. We will extract trial characteristics and verify the use of PPI with trial authors unless specifically stated in the published paper. The primary outcome will be the proportion of trials that use PPI. Secondary outcomes will explore which groups are consulted, at which stage of the trial process this occurs, and by what means these opinions are collected and implemented. DISCUSSION: This meta-epidemiological study will provide an important insight into the use of PPI in large, contemporary intensive care trials. We wish to reveal ways in which patient involvement could be incorporated more broadly and purposefully here and help to empower clinicians, researchers and patients to collaborate further on future research processes and goals.

Patient-important outcomes other than mortality in recent ICU trials: Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently focus on all-cause mortality, but other patient-important outcomes are increasingly used and recommended. Their use, however, is not straightforward: choices and definitions, operationalisation of death, handling of missing data, choice of effect measures, and statistical analyses for these outcomes vary greatly. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search 10 selected general and speciality journals for RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients from 2018 and onwards reporting at least 1 patient-important outcome other than mortality (including days alive without life support/days alive and out of hospital-type outcomes, health-related quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes, and other general patient-important outcomes). We will summarise data on outcome measures and definitions, assessment time points, proportions and handling of death, proportions and handling of missing data, and effect measures and statistical methods used for analysis. DISCUSSION: The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of choices, definitions and handling of patient-important outcomes other than mortality in contemporary RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients. This may guide discussions with patients and relatives, the design of future RCTs, and research on optimal outcome choices and handling.

Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists. METHODS: The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

Reporting and interpreting missing health-related quality of life data in intensive care trials: Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life is often used as a patient-important outcome in randomized clinical trials in the intensive care unit setting. Missing data are a challenge in randomized clinical trials as they hamper the interpretation of the results, but the extent and handling of missing health-related quality of life data are unknown. Therefore, we aim to describe and evaluate the extent, pattern, and handling of missing health-related quality of life data in randomized clinical trials conducted in the intensive care unit setting. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomized clinical trials in intensive care patients that report health-related quality of life. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, PubMed, excerpta medica database ovid, and cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis statement. We will extract information about missing data, including how the analyses and reporting of missing data were performed. We will assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and compare the number of nonresponders vs responders in (a) low vs high risk of bias trials and in (b) small (n ≤ 100) vs large randomized clinical trials (n > 100). DISCUSSION: With this outlined systematic review, we will describe the handling of missing health-related quality of life data in randomized clinical trials in the intensive care unit setting and the impact on the interpretation of results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): reg. no.: CRD42019118932.

Conservative vs liberal fluid therapy in septic shock (CLASSIC) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) fluid is a key intervention in the management of septic shock. The benefits and harms of lower versus higher fluid volumes are unknown and thus clinical equipoise exists. We describe the protocol and detailed statistical analysis plan for the conservative versus liberal approach to fluid therapy of septic shock in the Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. The aim of the CLASSIC trial is to assess benefits and harms of IV fluid restriction versus standard care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. METHODS: CLASSIC trial is an investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, and analyst-blinded trial. We will allocate 1554 adult patients with septic shock, who are planned to be or are admitted to an ICU, to IV fluid restriction versus standard care. The primary outcome is mortality at day 90. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs), days alive at day 90 without life support, days alive and out of the hospital at day 90 and mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cognitive function at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan, including three interim analyses. For the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables comparing the two interventions in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. DISCUSSION: The CLASSIC trial results will provide important evidence to guide clinicians' choice regarding the IV fluid therapy in adults with septic shock.