A manifesto for the future of ICU trials

Heterogeneity, Bayesian thinking, and phenotyping in critical care: A primer

PURPOSE

To familiarize clinicians with the emerging concepts in critical care research of Bayesian thinking and personalized medicine through phenotyping and explain their clinical relevance by highlighting how they address the issues of frequent negative trials and heterogeneity of treatment effect.

SUMMARY

The past decades have seen many negative (effect-neutral) critical care trials of promising interventions, culminating in calls to improve the field's research through adopting Bayesian thinking and increasing personalization of critical care medicine through phenotyping. Bayesian analyses add interpretive power for clinicians as they summarize treatment effects based on probabilities of benefit or harm, contrasting with conventional frequentist statistics that either affirm or reject a null hypothesis. Critical care trials are beginning to include prospective Bayesian analyses, and many trials have undergone reanalysis with Bayesian methods. Phenotyping seeks to identify treatable traits to target interventions to patients expected to derive benefit. Phenotyping and subphenotyping have gained prominence in the most syndromic and heterogenous critical care disease states, acute respiratory distress syndrome and sepsis. Grouping of patients has been informative across a spectrum of clinically observable physiological parameters, biomarkers, and genomic data. Bayesian thinking and phenotyping are emerging as elements of adaptive clinical trials and predictive enrichment, paving the way for a new era of high-quality evidence. These concepts share a common goal, sifting through the noise of heterogeneity in critical care to increase the value of existing and future research.

CONCLUSION

The future of critical care medicine will inevitably involve modification of statistical methods through Bayesian analyses and targeted therapeutics via phenotyping. Clinicians must be familiar with these systems that support recommendations to improve decision-making in the gray areas of critical care practice.

I-SPY COVID adaptive platform trial for COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: rationale, design and operations

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic brought an urgent need to discover novel effective therapeutics for patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19. The Investigation of Serial studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging And moLecular Analysis (ISPY COVID-19 trial) was designed and implemented in early 2020 to evaluate investigational agents rapidly and simultaneously on a phase 2 adaptive platform. This manuscript outlines the design, rationale, implementation and challenges of the ISPY COVID-19 trial during the first phase of trial activity from April 2020 until December 2021.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ISPY COVID-19 Trial is a multicentre open-label phase 2 platform trial in the USA designed to evaluate therapeutics that may have a large effect on improving outcomes from severe COVID-19. The ISPY COVID-19 Trial network includes academic and community hospitals with significant geographical diversity across the country. Enrolled patients are randomised to receive one of up to four investigational agents or a control and are evaluated for a family of two primary outcomes-time to recovery and mortality. The statistical design uses a Bayesian model with 'stopping' and 'graduation' criteria designed to efficiently discard ineffective therapies and graduate promising agents for definitive efficacy trials. Each investigational agent arm enrols to a maximum of 125 patients per arm and is compared with concurrent controls. As of December 2021, 11 investigational agent arms had been activated, and 8 arms were complete. Enrolment and adaptation of the trial design are ongoing.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

ISPY COVID-19 operates under a central institutional review board via Wake Forest School of Medicine IRB00066805. Data generated from this trial will be reported in peer-reviewed medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04488081.

Identifying clinical subtypes in sepsis-survivors with different one-year outcomes: a secondary latent class analysis of the FROG-ICU cohort

BACKGROUND

Late mortality risk in sepsis-survivors persists for years with high readmission rates and low quality of life. The present study seeks to link the clinical sepsis-survivors heterogeneity with distinct biological profiles at ICU discharge and late adverse events using an unsupervised analysis.

METHODS

In the original FROG-ICU prospective, observational, multicenter study, intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis on admission (Sepsis-3) were identified (N = 655). Among them, 467 were discharged alive from the ICU and included in the current study. Latent class analysis was applied to identify distinct sepsis-survivors clinical classes using readily available data at ICU discharge. The primary endpoint was one-year mortality after ICU discharge.

RESULTS

At ICU discharge, two distinct subtypes were identified (A and B) using 15 readily available clinical and biological variables. Patients assigned to subtype B (48% of the studied population) had more impaired cardiovascular and kidney functions, hematological disorders and inflammation at ICU discharge than subtype A. Sepsis-survivors in subtype B had significantly higher one-year mortality compared to subtype A (respectively, 34% vs 16%, p < 0.001). When adjusted for standard long-term risk factors (e.g., age, comorbidities, severity of illness, renal function and duration of ICU stay), subtype B was independently associated with increased one-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.74 (95% CI 1.16-2.60); p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A subtype with sustained organ failure and inflammation at ICU discharge can be identified from routine clinical and laboratory data and is independently associated with poor long-term outcome in sepsis-survivors. Trial registration NCT01367093; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01367093 .

Randomised clinical trials in critical care: past, present and future

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for providing unbiased evidence of intervention effects. Here, we provide an overview of the history of RCTs and discuss the major challenges and limitations of current critical care RCTs, including overly optimistic effect sizes; unnuanced conclusions based on dichotomization of results; limited focus on patient-centred outcomes other than mortality; lack of flexibility and ability to adapt, increasing the risk of inconclusive results and limiting knowledge gains before trial completion; and inefficiency due to lack of re-use of trial infrastructure. We discuss recent developments in critical care RCTs and novel methods that may provide solutions to some of these challenges, including a research programme approach (consecutive, complementary studies of multiple types rather than individual, independent studies), and novel design and analysis methods. These include standardization of trial protocols; alternative outcome choices and use of core outcome sets; increased acceptance of uncertainty, probabilistic interpretations and use of Bayesian statistics; novel approaches to assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects; adaptation and platform trials; and increased integration between clinical trials and clinical practice. We outline the advantages and discuss the potential methodological and practical disadvantages with these approaches. With this review, we aim to inform clinicians and researchers about conventional and novel RCTs, including the rationale for choosing one or the other methodological approach based on a thorough discussion of pros and cons. Importantly, the most central feature remains the randomisation, which provides unparalleled restriction of confounding compared to non-randomised designs by reducing confounding to chance.

Targeted temperature management following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of temperature targets

PURPOSE

Targeted temperature management (TTM) may improve survival and functional outcome in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), though the optimal target temperature remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of deep hypothermia (31-32 °C), moderate hypothermia (33-34 °C), mild hypothermia (35-36 °C), and normothermia (37-37.8 °C) during TTM.

METHODS

We searched six databases from inception to June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating TTM in comatose OHCA survivors. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was survival with good functional outcome. We used GRADE to rate our certainty in estimates.

RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (4218 patients). Compared with normothermia, deep hypothermia (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-2.30), moderate hypothermia (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.92-1.94) and mild hypothermia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.74-2.80) may have no effect on survival with good functional outcome (all low certainty). Deep hypothermia may not improve survival with good functional outcome, as compared to moderate hypothermia (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.61-1.54, low certainty). Moderate hypothermia (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86-1.77) and deep hypothermia (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-2.32) may have no effect on survival, as compared to normothermia. Finally, incidence of arrhythmia was higher with moderate hypothermia (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08-1.94) and deep hypothermia (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.77-7.26), compared to normothermia (both high certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Mild, moderate, or deep hypothermia may not improve survival or functional outcome after OHCA, as compared to normothermia. Moderate and deep hypothermia were associated with higher incidence of arrhythmia. Routine use of moderate or deep hypothermia in comatose survivors of OHCA may potentially be associated with more harm than benefit.