Abstract

IMPORTANCE The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. RESULTS The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. RESULTS Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Abstract

PURPOSE Fluid overload is common in critical illness and is associated with mortality. This study investigated the feasibility of a randomised trial comparing conservative fluid administration and deresuscitation (active removal of accumulated fluid using diuretics or ultrafiltration) with usual care in critical illness. METHODS Open-label, parallel-group, allocation-concealed randomised clinical feasibility trial. Mechanically ventilated adult patients expected to require critical care beyond the next calendar day were enrolled between 24 and 48 h following admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were randomised to either a 2-stage fluid strategy comprising conservative fluid administration and, if fluid overload was present, active deresuscitation, or usual care. The primary endpoint was fluid balance in the 24 h up to the start of study day 3. Secondary endpoints included cumulative fluid balance, mortality, and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS One hundred and eighty patients were randomised. After withdrawal of 1 patient, 89 patients assigned to the intervention were compared with 90 patients assigned to the usual care group. The mean plus standard deviation (SD) 24-h fluid balance up to study day 3 was lower in the intervention group (- 840 ± 1746 mL) than the usual care group (+ 130 ± 1401 mL; P < 0.01). Cumulative fluid balance was lower in the intervention group at days 3 and 5. Overall, clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups, although the point estimate for 30-day mortality favoured the usual care group [intervention arm: 19 of 90 (21.6%) versus usual care: 14 of 89 (15.6%), P = 0.32]. Baseline imbalances between groups and lack of statistical power limit interpretation of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS A strategy of conservative fluid administration and active deresuscitation is feasible, reduces fluid balance compared with usual care, and may cause benefit or harm. In view of wide variations in contemporary clinical practice, large, adequately powered trials investigating the clinical effectiveness of conservative fluid strategies in critically ill patients are warranted.

Abstract

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients. PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness. METHODS We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes. RESULTS Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.02, I 2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53-3.10, I 2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.88 days, 95 % CI -0.12 to -3.64, I 2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. CONCLUSIONS In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Fresh red cells may improve outcomes in critically ill patients by enhancing oxygen delivery while minimizing the risks of toxic effects from cellular changes and the accumulation of bioactive materials in blood components during prolonged storage. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, blinded trial, we assigned critically ill adults to receive either red cells that had been stored for less than 8 days or standard-issue red cells (the oldest compatible units available in the blood bank). The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality. RESULTS Between March 2009 and May 2014, at 64 centers in Canada and Europe, 1211 patients were assigned to receive fresh red cells (fresh-blood group) and 1219 patients were assigned to receive standard-issue red cells (standard-blood group). Red cells were stored a mean (+/-SD) of 6.1+/-4.9 days in the fresh-blood group as compared with 22.0+/-8.4 days in the standard-blood group (P<0.001). At 90 days, 448 patients (37.0%) in the fresh-blood group and 430 patients (35.3%) in the standard-blood group had died (absolute risk difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 5.5). In the survival analysis, the hazard ratio for death in the fresh-blood group, as compared with the standard-blood group, was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.2; P=0.38). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes (major illnesses; duration of respiratory, hemodynamic, or renal support; length of stay in the hospital; and transfusion reactions) or in the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS Transfusion of fresh red cells, as compared with standard-issue red cells, did not decrease the 90-day mortality among critically ill adults. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN44878718.).

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. They are characterized by excessive inflammation, upregulation of procoagulant proteins and depletion of natural anticoagulants. Plasma exchange has the potential to improve survival in sepsis by removing inflammatory cytokines and restoring deficient plasma proteins. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, reference lists of relevant articles, and grey literature for relevant citations. We included randomized controlled trials comparing plasma exchange or plasma filtration with usual care in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock. Two reviewers independently identified trials, extracted trial-level data and performed risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality reported at longest follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS Of 1,957 records identified, we included four unique trials enrolling a total of 194 patients (one enrolling adults only, two enrolling children only, one enrolling adults and children). The mean age of adult patients ranged from 38 to 53 years (n=128) and the mean age of children ranged from 0.9 to 18 years (n=66). All trials were at unclear to high risk of bias. The use of plasma exchange was not associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52, I(2) 60%). In adults, plasma exchange was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96; I(2) 0%), but was not in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.38; I(2) 60%). None of the trials reported ICU or hospital lengths of stay. Only one trial reported adverse events associated with plasma exchange including six episodes of hypotension and one allergic reaction to fresh frozen plasma. CONCLUSIONS Insufficient evidence exists to recommend plasma exchange as an adjunctive therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Rigorous randomized controlled trials evaluating clinically relevant patient-centered outcomes are required to evaluate the impact of plasma exchange in this condition.

Abstract

BACKGROUND There have been conflicting reports on the efficacy of recombinant human activated protein C, or drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA), for the treatment of patients with septic shock. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we assigned 1697 patients with infection, systemic inflammation, and shock who were receiving fluids and vasopressors above a threshold dose for 4 hours to receive either DrotAA (at a dose of 24 ?g per kilogram of body weight per hour) or placebo for 96 hours. The primary outcome was death from any cause 28 days after randomization. RESULTS At 28 days, 223 of 846 patients (26.4%) in the DrotAA group and 202 of 834 (24.2%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk in the DrotAA group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.28; P=0.31). At 90 days, 287 of 842 patients (34.1%) in the DrotAA group and 269 of 822 (32.7%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19; P=0.56). Among patients with severe protein C deficiency at baseline, 98 of 342 (28.7%) in the DrotAA group had died at 28 days, as compared with 102 of 331 (30.8%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.17; P=0.54). Similarly, rates of death at 28 and 90 days were not significantly different in other predefined subgroups, including patients at increased risk for death. Serious bleeding during the treatment period occurred in 10 patients in the DrotAA group and 8 in the placebo group (P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS DrotAA did not significantly reduce mortality at 28 or 90 days, as compared with placebo, in patients with septic shock. (Funded by Eli Lilly; PROWESS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604214.).

Abstract

Red blood cells (RBCs) are transfused to treat anemia and to maintain oxygen delivery to vital organs during critical illness. Laboratory and observational studies have raised the possibility that prolonged RBC storage may adversely affect clinical outcomes. Compared with RBCs stored less than 1 week, there are no clinical data demonstrating that RBCs stored longer remain as effective at carrying or releasing oxygen, and observational studies have risen to possibility that prolonged RBC storage might result in harm to vulnerable patients requiring blood transfusions. The Age of Blood Evaluation(ABLE) study (ISRCTN44878718) is a double-blind, multicenter, parallel randomized controlled clinical trial. It will test the hypothesis that the transfusion of prestorage leukoreduced RBCs stored for 7 days or less (fresh arm) as compared with standard-issue RBCs stored, on average, 15 to 20 days (control arm) will lead to lower 90-day all-cause mortality and reduced morbidity in critically ill adults. We include adults in intensive care units (ICUs) who (1) have had a request for a first RBC unit transfusion during the first 7 days of ICU admission and (2) have an anticipated requirement for ongoing invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation exceeding 48 hours. Enrolled patients are randomized at the time of transfusion to receive either standard-issue RBC units or RBCs stored 7 days or less issued by the local hospital transfusion service. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include ICU and hospital mortality, organ failure, and serious nosocomial infections. With 2510 patients, we will be able to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction (from 25% to 20%). The ABLE study is currently enrolling patients in 23 university-affiliated and community-hospital ICUs across Canada; sites in France and United Kingdom are expected to start recruitment in 2011. Regardless of the results, ABLE study will have significant implications on the duration of RBC storage. A negative trial will reassure clinicians and blood bankers regarding the effectiveness and safety of standard-issue RBCs. A positive trial will have significant implications with respect to inventory management of RBCs given to critically ill adults with a high risk of mortality and will also prompt research to better understand the RBC storage lesion in the hopes of minimizing its clinical consequences through the development of better storage methods.

Abstract

The role of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) in severe sepsis remains controversial and clinicians are unsure whether or not to treat their patients with DAA. In response to a request from the European Medicines Agency, Eli Lilly will sponsor a new placebo-controlled trial and history suggests the results will be subject to great scrutiny. An academic steering committee will oversee the conduct of the study and will write the study manuscripts. The steering committee intends that the study will be conducted with the maximum possible transparency; this includes publication of the study protocol and a memorandum of understanding which delineates the role of the sponsor. The trial has the potential to provide clinicians with valuable data but patients will only benefit if clinicians have confidence in the conduct, analysis and reporting of the trial. This special article describes the process by which the trial was developed, major decisions regarding trial design, and plans for independent analysis, interpretation and reporting of the data. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B. V. , Amsterdam. All Rights Reserved.