Beliefs of physician directors on the management of devastating brain injuries at the Canadian emergency department and intensive care unit interface: a national site-level survey

PURPOSE

Insufficient evidence-based recommendations to guide care for patients with devastating brain injuries (DBIs) leave patients vulnerable to inconsistent practice at the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) interface. We sought to characterize the beliefs of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) physician site directors regarding current management practices for patients with DBI.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM and CCM physician directors of adult EDs and ICUs across Canada (December 2022 to March 2023). Our primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who manage (or consult on) patients with DBI in the ED. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare beliefs of EM and CCM physicians.

RESULTS

Of 303 eligible respondents, we received 98 (32%) completed surveys (EM physician directors, 46; CCM physician directors, 52). Most physician directors reported participating in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients with DBI in the ED (80%, n = 78), but 63% of these (n = 62) said this was infrequent. Physician directors reported that existing neuroprognostication methods are rarely sufficient to support WLSM in the ED (49%, n = 48) and believed that an ICU stay is required to improve confidence (99%, n = 97). Most (96%, n = 94) felt that providing caregiver visitation time prior to WLSM was a valid reason for ICU admission.

CONCLUSION

In our survey of Canadian EM and CCM physician directors, 80% participated in WLSM in the ED for patients with DBI. Despite this, most supported ICU admission to optimize neuroprognostication and patient-centred end-of-life care, including organ donation.

Addressing health care inequities in Canadian critical care through inclusive science: a pilot tool for standardized data collection

PURPOSE

Sociodemographic risks contributing to health inequities are often inadequately captured and reported in critical care studies. To address the lack of standardized terms and definitions, we sought to develop a practical and convenient resource of questions and response options for collecting sociodemographic variables for critical care research.

SOURCE

To identify domains and variables that impact health equity, we searched: 1) PubMed for critical care randomized trials (2010 to 2021); 2) high-impact critical care and general medicine journals for special issues relating to equity; and 3) governmental and nongovernmental resources.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified 23 domains associated with health equity, including pronouns, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, visible minorities, language, household income, marital/relationship status, education, disabilities, immigrant and refugee status, employment, primary care access, expanded health insurance, internet access, housing security, food security, dependents, religion, and postal code. For each domain we provided standardized questions and response options; for 13/23 domains, we included more than one version of the question and response categories.

CONCLUSION

We developed a standardized, practical, and convenient demographic data collection tool for critical care research studies. Questions and response options can be adapted by researchers for inclusion in individual study questionnaires or case report forms.

The effect of duration of antimicrobial treatment for bacteremia in critically ill patients on in-hospital mortality - Retrospective double center analysis

PURPOSE

Excessive duration of antibiotic treatment is a major factor for inappropriate antibiotic consumption. Although in some instances shorter antibiotic courses are as efficient as longer ones, no specific recommendations as to the duration of antimicrobial treatment for bloodstream infections currently exist. In the present study, we investigated the effect of antibiotic treatment duration on in-hospital mortality using retrospective data from two cohorts that included patients with bacteremia at two Swiss tertiary Intensive Care Units (ICUs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall 8227 consecutive patients requiring ICU admission were screened for bacteremia between 01/2012-12/2013 in Lausanne and between 07/2016-05/2017 in Bern. Patients with an infection known to require prolonged treatment or having single positive blood culture with common contaminant pathogens were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the time from start of antimicrobial treatment to in-hospital death or hospital discharge, whichever comes first. The predictor of interest was adequate antimicrobial treatment duration, further divided into shorter (≤10 days) and longer (>10 days) durations. A time-dependent Cox model and a cloning approach were used to address immortality bias. The secondary outcomes were the median duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients with bacteremia overall and stratified by underlying infectious syndrome and pathogens in the case of secondary bacteremia.

RESULTS

Out of the 707 patients with positive blood cultures, 382 were included into the primary analysis. Median duration of antibiotic therapy was 14 days (IQR, 7-20). Most bacteremia (84%) were monomicrobial; 18% of all episodes were primary bacteremia. Respiratory (28%), intra-abdominal (23%) and catheter infections (17%) were the most common sources of secondary bacteremia. Using methods to mitigate the risk of confounding associated with antibiotic treatment durations, shorter versus longer treatment groups showed no differences in in-hospital survival (time-dependent Cox-model: HR 1.5, 95% CI (0.8, 2.7), p = 0.20; Cloning approach: HR 1.0, 95% CI (0.7,1.5) p = 0.83). Sensitivity analyses showed that the interpretation did not change when using a 7 days cut-off.

CONCLUSIONS

In this restrospective study, we found no evidence for a survival benefit of longer (>10 days) versus shorter treatment course in ICU patients with bacteremia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered on clinicatrials.gov (NCT05236283), 11 February 2022. The respective cantonal ethics commission (KEK Bern # 2021-02302) has approved the study.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients

Background

Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings.

Methods

Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries.

Results

Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population.

Conclusions

Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome.

Funding

Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Remdesivir in Patients With Severe Kidney Dysfunction: A Secondary Analysis of the CATCO Randomized Trial

This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial examines the risk of kidney or hepatic toxic effects among patients with impaired kidney function at baseline treated with remdesivir.

Choosing wisely in burn care

BACKGROUND

The Choosing Wisely Campaign was launched in 2012 and has been applied to a broad spectrum of disciplines in almost thirty countries, with the objective of reducing unnecessary or potentially harmful investigations and procedures, thus limiting costs and improving outcomes. In Canada, patients with burn injuries are usually initially assessed by primary care and emergency providers, while plastic or general surgeons provide ongoing management. We sought to develop a series of Choosing Wisely statements for burn care to guide these practitioners and inform suitable, cost-effective investigations and treatment choices.

METHODS

The Choosing Wisely Canada list for Burns was developed by members of the Canadian Special Interest Group of the American Burn Association. Eleven recommendations were generated from an initial list of 29 statements using a modified Delphi process and SurveyMonkey™.

RESULTS

Recommendations included statements on avoidance of prophylactic antibiotics, restriction of blood products, use of adjunctive analgesic medications, monitoring and titration of opioid analgesics, and minimizing 'routine' bloodwork, microbiology or radiological investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

The Choosing Wisely recommendations aim to encourage greater discussion between those involved in burn care, other health care professionals, and their patients, with a view to reduce the cost and adverse effects associated with unnecessary therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, while still maintaining high standards of evidence-based burn care.

Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxaemia due to covid-19: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial (COVID-PRONE)

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of prone positioning to reduce the risk of death or respiratory failure in non-critically ill patients admitted to hospital with covid-19.

DESIGN

Multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

15 hospitals in Canada and the United States from May 2020 until May 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients had a laboratory confirmed or a clinically highly suspected diagnosis of covid-19, needed supplemental oxygen (up to 50% fraction of inspired oxygen), and were able to independently lie prone with verbal instruction. Of the 570 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 257 were randomised and 248 were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomised 1:1 to prone positioning (that is, instructing a patient to lie on their stomach while they are in bed) or standard of care (that is, no instruction to adopt prone position).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, mechanical ventilation, or worsening respiratory failure defined as needing at least 60% fraction of inspired oxygen for at least 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included the change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped early on the basis of futility for the pre-specified primary outcome. The median time from hospital admission until randomisation was 1 day, the median age of patients was 56 (interquartile range 45-65) years, 89 (36%) patients were female, and 222 (90%) were receiving oxygen via nasal prongs at the time of randomisation. The median time spent prone in the first 72 hours was 6 (1.5-12.8) hours in total for the prone arm compared with 0 (0-2) hours in the control arm. The risk of the primary outcome was similar between the prone group (18 (14%) events) and the standard care group (17 (14%) events) (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.92). The change in the ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen after 72 hours was similar for patients randomised to prone positioning and standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Among non-critically ill patients with hypoxaemia who were admitted to hospital with covid-19, a multifaceted intervention to increase prone positioning did not improve outcomes. However, wide confidence intervals preclude definitively ruling out benefit or harm. Adherence to prone positioning was poor, despite multiple efforts to increase it. Subsequent trials of prone positioning should aim to develop strategies to improve adherence to awake prone positioning.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04383613.

Remdesivir for the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 in Canada: a randomized controlled trial

Background:

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems.

Methods:

We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation.

Results:

Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups.

Interpretation:

Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.

Epidemiology of intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database

PURPOSE

Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) may improve survival in people with septic shock. Current utilization patterns of IVIG are unknown. We sought to characterize adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors who received IVIG, describes IVIG regimens, and evaluate determinants of IVIG use in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database study of adult patients with septic shock admitted to US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (from July 2010 to June 2013). We described the proportion of patients with septic shock receiving IVIG, examined IVIG regimens across sites and employed random-effects multivariable regression techniques to identify predictors of IVIG use.

RESULTS

Intravenous immune globulin was administered to 0.3% (n = 685) of patients with septic shock; with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] dose of 1 [0.5-1.8] g·kg-1 for a median [IQR] of 1 [1-2] day. Receipt of IVIG was less likely for Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.72) and patients without private insurance (Medicare OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; Medicaid OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57) and more likely for patients with immunocompromise (OR, 6.83; 95% CI 5.47 to 8.53), necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 9.78; 95% CI 6.97 to 13.72), and toxic shock (OR, 56.9; 95% CI 38.7 to 83.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous immune globulin is used infrequently across the US in patients with septic shock. Regimens of IVIG in septic shock may be less intensive than those associated with a survival benefit in meta-analyses. Observed infrequent use supports apparent clinical equipoise, perhaps secondary to limitations of the primary literature. A clinical trial evaluating the role of IVIG in septic shock is needed.

Association between high cost user status and end-of-life care in hospitalized patients: A national cohort study of patients who die in hospital

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing end-of-life care between patients who are high cost users of the healthcare system compared to those who are not are lacking.

AIM

The objective of this study was to describe and measure the association between high cost user status and several health services outcomes for all adults in Canada who died in acute care, compared to non-high cost users and those without prior healthcare use.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

We used administrative data for all adults who died in hospital in Canada between 2011 and 2015 to measure the odds of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), receipt of invasive interventions, major surgery, and receipt of palliative care during the hospitalization in which the patient died. High cost users were defined as those in the top 10% of acute healthcare costs in the year prior to a person's hospitalization in which they died.

RESULTS

Among 252,648 people who died in hospital, 25,264 were high cost users (10%), 112,506 were non-high cost users (44.5%) and 114,878 had no prior acute care use (45.5%). After adjustment for age and sex, high cost user status was associated with a 14% increased odds of receiving an invasive intervention, a 15% increased odds of having major surgery, and an 8% lower odds of receiving palliative care compared to non-high cost users, but opposite when compared to patients without prior healthcare use.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients receive aggressive elements of end-of-life care during the hospitalization in which they die and a substantial number do not receive palliative care. Understanding how this care differs between those who were previously high- and non-high cost users may provide an opportunity to improve end of life care for whom better care planning and provision ought to be an equal priority.

Intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a Canadian national survey of critical care medicine and infectious disease specialist physicians

PURPOSE

This national survey evaluated the perceived efficacy and safety of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) in septic shock, self-reported utilization patterns, barriers to use, the population of interest for further trials and willingness to participate in future research of IVIG in septic shock.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians across Canada. We summarized categorical item responses as counts and proportions. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify physician-level predictors of IVIG use in septic shock.

RESULTS

Our survey was disseminated to 674 eligible respondents with a final response rate of 60%. Most (91%) respondents reported having prescribed IVIG to patients with septic shock at least once, 86% for septic shock due to necrotizing fasciitis, 52% for other bacterial toxin-mediated causes of septic shock, and 5% for undifferentiated septic shock. The majority of respondents expressed uncertainty regarding the impact of IVIG on mortality (97%) and safety (95%) in septic shock. Respondents were willing to participate in further IVIG research with 98% stating they would consider enrolling their patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock. Familiarity with published evidence was the single greatest predictor of IVIG use in septic shock (odds ratio, 10.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.4 to 30.5; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most Canadian critical care and infectious diseases specialist physicians reported previous experience using IVIG in septic shock. Respondents identified inadequacy of existing research as the greatest barrier to routine use of IVIG in septic shock. Most respondents support the need for further studies on IVIG in septic shock, and would consider enrolling their own patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock.

The association between varying levels of palliative care involvement on costs during terminal hospitalizations in Canada from 2012 to 2015

Background

Inpatient palliative care is associated with lower inpatient costs; however, this has yet to be studied using a more nuanced, multi-tiered measure of inpatient palliative care and a national population-representative dataset. Using a population-based cohort of Canadians who died in hospital, our objectives were to: describe patients’ receipt of palliative care and active interventions in their terminal hospitalization; and examine the relationship between inpatient palliative care and hospitalization costs.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study using data from the Discharge Abstract Database in Canada between fiscal years 2012 and 2015. The cohort were Canadian adults (age ≥ 18 years) who died in hospital between April 1st, 2012 and March 31st, 2015 (N = 250,640). The exposure was level of palliative care involvement defined as: medium-high, low, or no palliative care. The main measure was acute care costs calculated using resource intensity weights multiplied by the cost of standard hospital stay, represented in 2014 Canadian dollars (CAD). Descriptive statistics were represented as median (IQR), and n(%). We modelled cost as a function of palliative care using a gamma generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, accounting for clustering by hospital.

Results

There were 250,640 adults who died in hospital. Mean age was 76 (SD 14), 47% were female. The most common comorbidities were: metastatic cancer (21%), heart failure (21%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16%). Of the decedents, 95,450 (38%) had no palliative care involvement, 98,849 (38%) received low involvement, and 60,341 (24%) received medium to high involvement. Controlling for age, sex, province and predicted hospital mortality risk at admission, the cost per day of a terminal hospitalization was: $1359 (95% CI 1323: 1397) (no involvement), $1175 (95% CI 1146: 1206) (low involvement), and $744 (95% CI 728: 760) (medium-high involvement).

Conclusions

Increased involvement of palliative care was associated with lower costs. Future research should explore whether this relationship holds for non-terminal hospitalizations, and whether palliative care in other settings impacts inpatient costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06335-1.

Post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases (CORIPREV): study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial

Background

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a well-established strategy for the prevention of infectious diseases, in which recently exposed people take a short course of medication to prevent infection. The primary objective of the COVID-19 Ring-based Prevention Trial with lopinavir/ritonavir (CORIPREV-LR) is to evaluate the efficacy of a 14-day course of oral lopinavir/ritonavir as PEP against COVID-19 among individuals with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed case.

Methods

This is an open-label, multicenter, 1:1 cluster-randomized trial of LPV/r 800/200 mg twice daily for 14 days (intervention arm) versus no intervention (control arm), using an adaptive approach to sample size calculation. Participants will be individuals aged > 6 months with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case within the past 7 days. A combination of remote and in-person study visits at days 1, 7, 14, 35, and 90 includes comprehensive epidemiological, clinical, microbiologic, and serologic sampling. The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days after exposure, defined as a positive respiratory tract specimen for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction. Secondary outcomes include safety, symptomatic COVID-19, seropositivity, hospitalization, respiratory failure requiring ventilator support, mortality, psychological impact, and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will examine the impact of LPV/r on these outcomes in the subset of participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. To detect a relative risk reduction of 40% with 80% power at α = 0.05, assuming the secondary attack rate in ring members (p₀) = 15%, 5 contacts per case and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.05, we require 110 clusters per arm, or 220 clusters overall and approximately 1220 enrollees after accounting for 10% loss-to-follow-up. We will modify the sample size target after 60 clusters, based on preliminary estimates of p₀, ICC, and cluster size and consider switching to an alternative drug after interim analyses and as new data emerges. The primary analysis will be a generalized linear mixed model with logit link to estimate the effect of LPV/r on the probability of infection. Participants who test positive at baseline will be excluded from the primary analysis but will be maintained for additional analyses to examine the impact of LPV/r on early treatment.

Discussion

Harnessing safe, existing drugs such as LPV/r as PEP could provide an important tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel aspects of our design include the ring-based prevention approach, and the incorporation of remote strategies for conducting study visits and biospecimen collection.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04321174) on March 25, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05134-7.

How the COVID-19 pandemic will change the future of critical care

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

P2262Intensity and cost of health care at the end of life among patients with heart failure

Background

Health care utilization increase towards the end of life. There is little known about the intensity of care, including use of in-hospital services, critical care units, and invasive procedures at the end of life in heart failure (HF).

Aims

To determine the type and intensity of health care services offered at the end of life to patients with HF, and to establish the determinants of and costs associated with death in the hospital versus at home.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) who died between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2017 in Ontario, Canada. We included decedents with a diagnosis of HF in the 2 years preceding their death and a hospitalization for HF in their last year of life. We obtained demographic, clinical, healthcare utilization, and healthcare cost data from population-based administrative databases, using unique encrypted identifiers to link records. We calculated direct costs from the perspective of the Ministry of Health in our publicly-funded healthcare system. We used descriptive statistics and a 2-level multivariable logistic regression model) with patients (1st level) nested in regions (2nd level) to assess for predictors of death in the hospital versus at home.

Results

We identified 396,024 adults with HF who died between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2017. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age at death was 81.8 (10.7) years, and 48.5% were men. During the last 6 months of life, patients commonly experienced hospitalizations (78.1%), care from >10 different physicians (62.2%); intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (26.4%); mechanical ventilation (18.1%); hemodialysis (6.2%); and cardiac catheterization (3.7%). In the last 6 months of life, patients spent a mean (SD) of 17.4 (23.0) days in the hospital; 2.5 (8.3) days in an ICU; and 1.6 (7.9) days on a ventilator. While the proportion of deaths at home increased from 32.6% in 2004–2005 to 38% in 2016–2017, a majority of patients (53.4%) died in hospital during the study period. Factors independently associated with in-hospital death included age (OR 0.53 [95% CI 0.51–0.55] for age >85 years vs <60 years), sex (OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.87–0.89] for female vs male), and socioeconomic status (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.85–0.89] for highest vs lowest income quintile). Palliative care services in the last 6 months of life was associated with higher odds of in-hospital death (OR 1.73 [95% CI 1.70–1.76]). Death in hospital was associated with higher mean [SD] healthcare costs in the terminal 6 months of life than death out of hospital ($52,349 [55,649] vs $35,943 [31,907]).

Conclusion

In this large cohort study in Ontario, Canada, patients with HF commonly received in-hospital, intensive, and invasive care in the last 6 months of life, and a majority of patients died in hospital. Death in hospital was associated with higher costs of care in the terminal 6 months than death outside hospital.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, Canadian Institutes of Health Research

P3519Sex-based disparities in end of life care among patients with heart failure

Background

There are sex-based disparities in care and outcomes among patients with heart failure (HF), but the association between sex and health care services received at the end-of-life health is unknown.

Purpose

To assess for sex-based differences in location of death and the type and intensity of health care services received at the end of life among patients with HF.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) who died between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2017 in Ontario, Canada. We included decedents who had a diagnosis of HF and a hospitalization for HF in the year preceding their death. We obtained demographic, clinical, health care utilization, and healthcare system cost data from population-based administrative databases, using unique encrypted identifiers to link records. We used descriptive statistics and a 2-level multivariable logistic regression model with patients (1st level) nested in regions (2nd level) to assess whether sex was independently associated with death in hospital.

Results

We identified 396,024 adults (51.5% women) who died of HF between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2017. Mean (SD) age at death was 81.8 (10.7) years and a majority of deaths (53.4%) occurred in the hospital. During the last 6 months of life, a significantly lower proportion of women than men experienced emergency department visits (81.7% vs 86.5%; p<0.001); hospitalizations (75.6% vs 80.8%; p<0.001); intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (22.8% vs 30.1%; p<0.001); mechanical ventilation (15.5% vs 20.8%; p<0.001); cardiac catheterization (2.8% vs 4.6%; p<0.001); coronary revascularization (1.5% vs 2.6%; p<0.001); hemodialysis (4.8% vs 7.7%; p<0.001); or care from 10 or more different physicians (57.6% vs 67.1%; p<0.001). In the last 6 months of life, women spent fewer days than men in the hospital (mean 16.4 vs 18.3; mean difference [MD] 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.7–2.0]; p<0.001), in an ICU (mean 2.1 vs 3.0; MD 0.9 [95% CI 0.8–0.9]; p<0.001), and on a ventilator (mean 1.4 vs 1.9; MD 0.5 [95% CI 0.5–0.5]; p<0.001). These differences persisted and remained significant in the last month of life. There was no difference in the proportion of women vs men receiving palliative care services (45.1% vs 45.0%; p=0.53) in the last 6 months of life. After adjusting for age, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, place of residence, and year of death, women had lower odds of dying in a hospital than men (adjusted odds ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.87–0.89]).

Conclusion

In this large cohort study in Ontario, Canada, women with HF received disproportionately lower in-hospital and invasive care services than men in their last 6 months of life and were more likely than men to die at home.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Measuring variability between clusters by subgroup: An extension of the median odds ratio

Investigating clustered data requires consideration of the variation across clusters, including consideration of the component of the total individual variance that is at the cluster level. The median odds ratio and analogues are useful intuitive measures available to communicate variability in outcomes across clusters using the variance of random intercepts from a multilevel regression model. However, the median odds ratio cannot describe variability across clusters for different patient subgroups because the random intercepts do not vary by subgroup. To empower investigators interested in equity and other applications of this scenario, we describe an extension of the median odds ratio to multilevel regression models employing both random intercepts and random coefficients. By example, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of variation in care limitations (goals of care preferences) according to ethnicity in patients admitted to intensive care. Using mixed-effects logistic regression clustered by hospital, we demonstrated that patients of non-Caucasian ethnicity were less likely to have care limitations but experienced similar variability across hospitals. Limitations of the extended median odds ratio include the large sample sizes and computational power needed for models with random coefficients. This extension of the median odds ratio to multilevel regression models with random coefficients will provide insight into cluster-level variability for researchers interested in equity and other phenomena where variability by patient subgroup is important.

Abstract P4-09-06: Analyzing the changes in the HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) landscape since the arrival of CDK4/6 inhibitors with machine learning and visual analytics

BACKGROUND: The real-world impact of CDK4/6 inhibitor use on HR+/HER2- mBC treatment sequencing, treatment response, and therapeutic utilization is limited. This study sought to describe treatment sequencing and response pre- and post-FDA approval of CDK4/6 inhibitors by conducting a traditional observational study approach and supplementing with a machine-learning methodology.

METHODS: Female patients ≥18yrs were identified in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplement databases with continuous enrollment for at least 12 months pre-index, ≥2 medical claims for a BC diagnosis and ≥2 medical claims for metastatic disease (earliest=index date), and who had no treatment at any time with HER2 targeted therapy. Patients were excluded if they had received CDK4/6 or everolimus treatment prior to index. Treatment was stratified by line of therapy pre- and post- first CDK4/6 approval (February 3, 2015). We identified treatment patterns with standard distributions and visual analytics. Response to therapy and utilization was analyzed with prediction models and IBM Watson® machine learning population comparison models.

RESULTS: A total of 19,558 patients were eligible for the study with a mean age at diagnosis of mBC of 62 (SD 13). Prior to first CDK4/6 inhibitor approval, anastrazole and letrozole monotherapies were most likely to be identified as both first and second line treatment. Following approval of the first CDK4/6 inhibitor in 2015, CDK4/6 inhibitors were observed as a first line treatment in 25% of patients, and as second line treatment in 24% of patients. Of patients diagnosed following the first CDK4/6 inhibitor approval, 44% of patients were exposed to endocrine therapy and 10% were exposed to chemotherapy in the pre-index period. Patients receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy as first line treatment were observed to have a longer progression free survival time than patients receiving endocrine monotherapy. Visual analytics demonstrate a large variation in treatment sequencing, especially after first line therapy. Machine learning and prediction models identified a strong secular bias in the use of CDK4/6 and a signal for improved treatment response in patients with no exposure to endocrine therapies in the pre-index period.

CONCLUSIONS: The mBC treatment landscape has changed significantly with the introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors, which may be expected to impact long-term outcomes. Visual analytics and machine learning approaches can improve clinical insight. These approaches can help with identifying patient and clinical characteristics that predict response and utilization as well as appropriate treatment selections across lines of therapy.

Citation Format: Meade D, Hensley Alford S, Mahatma S, Malangone-Monaco E, Boulanger L, Tkacz J, Turner SJ, Chen S, Manson S, Mejia S, Buleje I, Madan P, Kim G, Fowler R, Basar A. Analyzing the changes in the HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) landscape since the arrival of CDK4/6 inhibitors with machine learning and visual analytics [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-09-06.

Ebola Virus Persistence in Ocular Tissues and Fluids (EVICT) Study: Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction and Cataract Surgery Outcomes of Ebola Survivors in Sierra Leone

Background

Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors are at risk for uveitis during convalescence. Vision loss has been observed following uveitis due to cataracts. Since Ebola virus (EBOV) may persist in the ocular fluid of EVD survivors for an unknown duration, there are questions about the safety and feasibility of vision restorative cataract surgery in EVD survivors.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of EVD survivors anticipating cataract surgery and patients with active uveitis to evaluate EBOV RNA persistence in ocular fluid, as well as vision outcomes post cataract surgery. Patients with aqueous humor that tested negative for EBOV RNA were eligible to proceed with manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS).

Findings

We screened 137 EVD survivors from June 2016 – August 2017 for enrolment. We enrolled 50 EVD survivors; 46 with visually significant cataract, 1 with a subluxated lens, 2 with active uveitis and 1 with a blind painful eye due to uveitis. The median age was 24.0 years (IQR 17–35) and 35 patients (70%) were female. The median logMAR visual acuity (VA) was 3.0 (Snellen VA Hand motions; Interquartile Range, IQR: 1.2-3.0, Snellen VA 20/320 – Hand motions). All patients tested negative for EBOV RNA by RT-PCR in aqueous humor/vitreous fluid and conjunctiva at a median of 19 months (IQR 18-20) from EVD diagnosis in Phase 1 of ocular fluid sampling and 34 months (IQR 32-36) from EVD diagnosis in Phase 2 of ocular fluid sampling. Thirty-four patients underwent MSICS, with a preoperative median VA improvement from hand motions to 20/30 at three-month postoperative follow-up (P < 0.001).

Interpretation

EBOV persistence by RT-PCR was not identified in ocular fluid or conjunctivae of fifty EVD survivors with ocular disease. Cataract surgery can be performed safely with vision restorative outcomes in patients who test negative for EBOV RNA in ocular fluid specimens. These findings impact the thousands of West African EVD survivors at-risk for ocular complications who may also require eye surgery during EVD convalescence.

•

Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors are at-risk for severe vision impairment due to uveitis and subsequent cataract development.

•

Fifty EVD survivors underwent ocular fluid sampling and tested negative for Ebola virus by RT-PCR.

•

Thirty-four survivors underwent cataract surgery with excellent safety measures and vision restorative outcomes.

Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors are at high risk for uveitis, an inflammatory condition affecting the eye that may lead to severe vision impairment, often from cataract. Because persistent Ebola virus (EBOV) has been identified within the immune privileged eye, understanding the prevalence of intraocular EBOV persistence is significant for patients, providers, and public health policy. In this study, 50 EVD survivors tested negative for EBOV by RT-PCR of their intraocular fluid. Thirty-four underwent cataract surgery with vision restorative outcomes. These findings improve our ability to impact vision care and quality-of-life for thousands of EVD survivors at-risk for eye disease.

Admission of the very elderly to the intensive care unit: family members' perspectives on clinical decision-making from a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the perspectives and experiences of family members of very elderly patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit.

AIM

To describe family members' perspectives about care provided to very elderly critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

In total, 535 family members of patients aged 80 years or older admitted to 22 intensive care units for more than 24 h.

RESULTS

Family members reported that the "patient be comfortable and suffer as little as possible" was their most important value and "the belief that life should be preserved at all costs" was their least important value considered in making treatment decisions. Most family members (57.9%) preferred that life support be used for their family member, whereas 24.1% preferred comfort measures only, and 14.4% were unsure of their treatment preferences. Only 57.3% reported that a doctor had talked to them about treatment options for the patient. Overall, 29.7% of patients received life-sustaining treatments for more than 7 days and 50.3% of these died in hospital. Families were most satisfied with the skill and competency of nurses and least satisfied with being included and supported in the decision-making process and with their sense of control over the patient's care.

CONCLUSION

There is incongruity between family values and preferences for end-of-life care and actual care received for very elderly patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit. Deficiencies in communication and decision-making may be associated with prolonged use of life-sustaining treatments in very elderly critically ill patients, many of whom ultimately die.

The use of hypnosis for pain relief for patients with polyradiculoneuritis

At the Royal Perth Hospital, pain during physiotherapy range of movement and muscle stretching exercises has been a significant problem for some patients who have had polyradiculoneuritis, otherwise known as the Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). Anxiety often accompanies GBS and can exacerbate the experience of pain. Regular analgesics have failed to adequately control the patients' pain such that full range of movement has been impossible and soft tissue shortening has occurred. Recently, alternative pain control in the form of hypnotherapy has been used during physiotherapy sessions. Two case studies are presented as examples of the use of hypnotherapy at the Royal Perth Hospital. These describe the benefit of hypnotherapy for pain control in some patients who have GBS.

Corticosteroid use in the intensive care unit: a survey of intensivists

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in many critical illnesses remains uncertain. Our primary objective was to survey intensivists in North America about their perceived use of corticosteroids in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Self-administered paper survey.

POPULATION

Intensivists in academic hospitals with clinical trial expertise in critical illness.

MEASUREMENTS

We generated questionnaire items in focus groups and refined them after assessments of clinical sensibility and test-retest reliability and pilot testing. We administered the survey to experienced intensivists practicing in selected North American centres actively enrolling patients in the multicentre Oscillation for ARDS Treated Early (OSCILLATE) Trial (ISRCTN87124254). Respondents used a four-point scale to grade how frequently they would administer corticosteroids in 14 clinical settings. They also reported their opinions on 16 potential near-absolute indications or contraindications for the use of corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

Our response rate was 82% (103/125). Respondents were general internists (50%), respirologists (22%), anesthesiologists (21%), and surgeons (7%) who practiced in mixed medical-surgical units. A majority of respondents reported almost always prescribing corticosteroids in the setting of significant bronchospasm in a mechanically ventilated patient (94%), recent corticosteroid use and low blood pressure (93%), and vasopressor-refractory septic shock (52%). Although more than half of respondents stated they would almost never prescribe corticosteroids in severe community-acquired pneumonia (81%), acute lung injury (ALI, 76%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, 65%), and severe ARDS (51%), variability increased with severity of acute lung injury. Near-absolute indications selected by most respondents included known adrenal insufficiency (99%) and suspicion of cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (89%), connective tissue disease (85%), or other potentially corticosteroid-responsive illnesses (85%).

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents reported rarely prescribing corticosteroids for ALI, but accepted them for bronchospasm, suspected adrenal insufficiency due to previous corticosteroid use, and vasopressor-refractory septic shock. These competing indications will complicate the design and interpretation of any future large-scale trial of corticosteroids in critical illness.

Co-enrollment of critically ill patients into multiple studies: patterns, predictors and consequences

INTRODUCTION

Research on co-enrollment practices and their impact are limited in the ICU setting. The objectives of this study were: 1) to describe patterns and predictors of co-enrollment of patients in a thromboprophylaxis trial, and 2) to examine the consequences of co-enrollment on clinical and trial outcomes.

METHODS

In an observational analysis of an international thromboprophylaxis trial in 67 ICUs, we examined the co-enrollment of critically ill medical-surgical patients into more than one study, and examined the clinical and trial outcomes among co-enrolled and non-co-enrolled patients.

RESULTS

Among 3,746 patients enrolled in PROTECT (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial), 713 (19.0%) were co-enrolled in at least one other study (53.6% in a randomized trial, 37.0% in an observational study and 9.4% in both). Six factors independently associated with co-enrollment (all P < 0.001) were illness severity (odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.53 for each 10-point Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score increase), substitute decision-makers providing consent, rather than patients (OR 3.31, 2.03 to 5.41), experience of persons inviting consent (OR 2.67, 1.74 to 4.11 for persons with > 10 years' experience compared to persons with none), center size (all ORs > 10 for ICUs with > 15 beds), affiliation with trials groups (OR 5.59, 3.49 to 8.95), and main trial rather than pilot phase (all ORs > 8 for recruitment year beyond the pilot). Co-enrollment did not influence clinical or trial outcomes or risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-enrollment was strongly associated with features of the patients, research personnel, setting and study. Co-enrollment had no impact on trial results, and appeared safe, acceptable and feasible. Transparent reporting, scholarly discourse, ethical analysis and further research are needed on the complex topic of co-enrollment during critical illness.