Trends in use of composite endpoints in clinical trials: A comparison between acute heart failure trials and COVID-19 trials.

Composite endpoints can encode multiple pieces of information and are increasingly adopted in clinical trials. Advocacy for using composite endpoints began decades ago in cardiovascular trials, leading to incorporation of patient-oriented outcomes and consideration of a hierarchical ranking system. The use of composite endpoints in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) trials has evolved similarly. We conducted a literature review to investigate the use of composite endpoints in acute heart failure and COVID-19 clinical trials. The results showed more frequent use of patient-oriented outcomes and ordinal composite endpoints in COVID-19 trials, which might be driven by global consensus on a set of common outcome measures.

BOugie or stylet in patients UnderGoing Intubation Emergently (BOUGIE): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Intubation-related complications are less frequent when intubation is successful on the first attempt. The rate of first attempt success in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) is typically less than 90%. The bougie, a semirigid introducer that can be placed into the trachea to facilitate a Seldinger-like technique of tracheal intubation and is typically reserved for difficult or failed intubations, might improve first attempt success. Evidence supporting its use, however, is from a single academic ED with frequent bougie use. Validation of these findings is needed before widespread implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BOugie or stylet in patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in six EDs and six ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol 1106 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 for the use of a bougie or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is severe hypoxaemia, defined as an oxygen saturation less than 80% between induction until 2 min after completion of intubation. Enrolment began on 29 April 2019 and is expected to be completed in 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the Central Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at an enrolling site. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03928925).

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREventing cardiovascular collaPse with Administration of fluid REsuscitation during Induction and Intubation (PREPARE II) randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular collapse is a common complication during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Whether administration of an intravenous fluid bolus prevents cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation remains uncertain. A prior randomised trial found fluid bolus administration to be ineffective overall but suggested potential benefit for patients receiving positive pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PREventing cardiovascular collaPse with Administration of fluid REsuscitation during Induction and Intubation (PREPARE II) trial is a prospective, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in 13 academic intensive care units in the USA. The trial will randomise 1065 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with planned use of positive pressure ventilation (non-invasive ventilation or bag-mask ventilation) between induction and laryngoscopy to receive 500 mL of intravenous crystalloid or no intravenous fluid bolus. The primary outcome is cardiovascular collapse, defined as any of: systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg, new or increased vasopressor administration between induction and 2 min after intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction and 1 hour after intubation. The primary analysis will be an unadjusted, intention-to-treat comparison of the primary outcome between patients randomised to fluid bolus administration and patients randomised to no fluid bolus administration using a χ2 test. The sole secondary outcome is 28-day in-hospital mortality. Enrolment began on 1 February 2019 and is expected to conclude in June 2020. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by either the central institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at each trial site. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03787732.

Variability in expert assessments of child physical abuse likelihood.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a gold standard, clinicians and researchers often categorize their opinions of the likelihood of inflicted injury using several ordinal scales. The objective of this protocol was to determine the reliability of expert ratings using several of these scales. METHODS: Participants were pediatricians with substantial academic and clinical activity in the evaluation of children with concerns for physical abuse. The facts from several cases that were referred to 1 hospital's child abuse team were abstracted and recorded as in a multidisciplinary team conference. Participants viewed the recording and rated each case using several scales of child abuse likelihood. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) showed broad variability for most cases on all scales. Variability was lowest for cases with the highest aggregate concern for abuse. One scale that included examples of cases fitting each category and standard reporting language to summarize results showed a modest (18%-23%) decrease in variability among participants. The interpretation of the categories used by the scales was more consistent. Cases were rarely rated as "definite abuse" when likelihood was estimated at < or = 95%. Only 7 of 156 cases rated < or = 15% likelihood were rated as "no reasonable concern for abuse." Only 9 of 858 cases rated > or = 35% likelihood were rated as "reasonable concern for abuse." CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of child abuse likelihood often show broad variability between experts. Although a rating scale with patient examples and standard reporting language may decrease variability, clinicians and researchers should be cautious when interpreting abuse likelihood assessments from a single expert. These data support the peer-review or multidisciplinary team approach to child abuse assessments.