Levosimendan for the prevention of acute organ dysfunction in sepsis

BACKGROUND Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing drug with inotropic and other properties that may improve outcomes in patients with sepsis. METHODS We conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to investigate whether levosimendan reduces the severity of organ dysfunction in adults with sepsis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a blinded infusion of levosimendan (at a dose of 0.05 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) for 24 hours or placebo in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the intensive care unit up to day 28 (scores for each of five systems range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction; maximum score, 20). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. RESULTS The trial recruited 516 patients; 259 were assigned to receive levosimendan and 257 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) SOFA score between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (6.68±3.96 vs. 6.06±3.89; mean difference, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.07 to 1.29; P=0.053). Mortality at 28 days was 34.5% in the levosimendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.5 to 11.7; P=0.43). Among patients requiring ventilation at baseline, those in the levosimendan group were less likely than those in the placebo group to be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation over the period of 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P=0.03). More patients in the levosimendan group than in the placebo group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS The addition of levosimendan to standard treatment in adults with sepsis was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction or lower mortality. Levosimendan was associated with a lower likelihood of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and a higher risk of supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. (Funded by the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and others; LeoPARDS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN12776039.

Interviewer-driven Variability in Social Network Reporting: Results from Health and Aging in Africa: a Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH community (HAALSI) in South Africa

Social network analysis depends on how social ties to others are elicited during interviews, a process easily affected by respondent and interviewer behaviors. We investigate how the number of self-reported important social contacts varied within a single data collection round. Our data come from Health and Aging in Africa: a Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH community (HAALSI), a comprehensive population-based survey of individuals aged 40 years and older conducted over 13 months at the Agincourt health and demographic surveillance site in rural South Africa. As part of HAALSI, interviewers elicited detailed egocentric network data. The average number of contacts reported by the 5,059 respondents both varied significantly across interviewers and fell over time as the data collection progressed, even after adjusting for respondent, interviewer, and respondent–interviewer dyad characteristics. Contact numbers rose substantially after a targeted interviewer intervention. We conclude that checking (and adjusting) for interviewer effects, even within one data collection round, is critical to valid and reliable social network analysis. Measurements of social networks depend on the number and type of social ties to others (Berkman et al. 2000; Smith and Christakis 2008). These ties are typically elicited through interviews, a process easily affected by respondent or interviewer characteristics and behaviors. Understanding social network structure and composition requires substantial amounts of information from respondents (“egos”) about the people (“alters”) they have relationships with (Marsden 1990). Notably, the survey burden associated with network data collection depends heavily on the number of alters elicited through “name generator” questions: Each alter named leads to the repetition of all follow-up questions characterizing the ego–alter relationship (“name interpreters”; Burt 1984). Interviewers have been identified as a key source of variation in survey responses, particularly for questions that are attitudinal, ambiguous, or have complex skip patterns (West and Blom 2016). Several studies have previously identified interviewer effects on network size (Brüderl et al. 2013; Josten and Trappmann 2016; Marsden 2003; Paik and Sanchagrin 2013; van Tilburg 1998). These interviewer effects may arise from differential understanding of survey questions, and therefore how questions are presented to respondents. Interviewers can also affect which alters are elicited due to their own characteristics (e.g., sex, race, age, or experience), or the nature of the interviewer–respondent dyad (e.g., gender, race, or age homophily), leading to different lines of enquiry, levels of probing, or expectations of social acceptability (Collins 1980; Hox 1994; Marsden 2003; Phung et al. 2015). Furthermore, if respondents or interviewers are aware that naming more alters substantially increases survey length, then either group may consciously or unconsciously seek to minimize the number of alters named (Eagle and Proeschold-Bell 2015; van der Zouwen and van Tilburg 2001). In cross-sectional surveys, the opportunities for respondents to learn are limited, but those for interviewers will increase as the survey period progresses. Interviewers may try to reduce survey burden, either for themselves or for respondents, by favoring language or probes that decrease the number of alters elicited. Indeed, past studies in Europe have found evidence of interviewers intentionally filtering out questions by entering fewer responses that would trigger more questions. Such filtering behavior has been seen in Europe for interviewers who are being compensated by the interview rather than by the hour (Josten and Trappmann 2016; Kosyakova et al. 2014), for interviewers with prior experience using the relevant screening tool (Matschinger et al. 2005), and where interviewers are under substantial pressure to complete more interviews (Schnell and Kreuter 2000). We aim to extend this literature by assessing how the number of alters elicited systematically changed over the course of a cross-sectional social network survey of older adults in rural South Africa. We show a substantial drop in alter numbers over time, and a swift reversal following retraining, providing substantial evidence for interviewer effects

Keratinocyte growth factor in acute lung injury to reduce pulmonary dysfunction – a randomised placebo-controlled trial (KARE): study protocol

Abstract Background Acute lung injury is a common, devastating clinical syndrome associated with substantial mortality and morbidity with currently no proven therapeutic interventional strategy to improve patient outcomes. The objectives of this study are to test the potential therapeutic effects of keratinocyte growth factor for patients with acute lung injury on oxygenation and biological indicators of acute inflammation, lung epithelial and endothelial function, protease:antiprotease balance, and lung extracellular matrix degradation and turnover. Methods/design This will be a prospective, randomised, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, phase 2, multicentre trial. Randomisation will be stratified by presence of severe sepsis requiring vasopressors. Patients in an ICU fulfilling the American–European Consensus Conference Definition of acute lung injury will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive an intravenous bolus of either keratinocyte growth factor (palifermin, 60 μg/kg) or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) daily for a maximum of 6 days. The primary endpoint of this clinical study is to evaluate the efficacy of palifermin to improve the oxygenation index at day 7 or the last available oxygenation index prior to patient discontinuation from the study.A formal statistical analysis plan has been constructed. Analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. A single analysis is planned at the end of the trial. P = 0.05 will be considered statistically significant and all tests will be two-sided. For continuously distributed outcomes, differences between groups will be tested using independent-sample t tests, analysis of variance and analysis of covariance with transformation of variables to normality or nonparametric equivalents. The trial will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (Consort 2010 guidelines). Trial registration http://ISRCTN9569067

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in acute lung injury to reduce pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2) trial : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a common devastating clinical syndrome characterized by life-threatening respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and multiple organ failure. There are in vitro, animal studies and pre-clinical data suggesting that statins may be beneficial in ALI. The Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute lung injury to Reduce Pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2) trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, allocation concealed, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial which aims to test the hypothesis that treatment with simvastatin will improve clinical outcomes in patients with ALI

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm : a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT)

Background Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population. Methods COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment. Discussion The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients

Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles

Background Sensitivity analyses are an important tool for understanding the extent to which the results of randomised trials depend upon the assumptions of the analysis. There is currently no guidance governing the choice of sensitivity analyses. Discussion We provide a principled approach to choosing sensitivity analyses through the consideration of the following questions: 1) Does the proposed sensitivity analysis address the same question as the primary analysis? 2) Is it possible for the proposed sensitivity analysis to return a different result to the primary analysis? 3) If the results do differ, is there any uncertainty as to which will be believed? Answering all of these questions in the affirmative will help researchers to identify relevant sensitivity analyses. Treating analyses as sensitivity analyses when one or more of the answers are negative can be misleading and confuse the interpretation of studies. The value of these questions is illustrated with several examples. Summary By removing unreasonable analyses that might have been performed, these questions will lead to relevant sensitivity analyses, which help to assess the robustness of trial results