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 angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

MOESM1 of Effect on comfort of administering bubble-humidified or dry oxygen: the Oxyrea non-inferiority randomized study

Additional file 1. The Oxyrea 15-item discomfort scale validation process and complementary data of the Oxyrea study

Impact of two endotracheal tube fixation on the incidence of peri-oral lesions: Elastic adhesive strips versus cord in a protective sheath. Study protocol for a cluster cross-over randomized trial.

BackgroundEndotracheal tube fixation in ventilated patients must be appropriate to ensure security during mechanical ventilation and prevent skin lesions. The incidence of endotracheal tube-caused pressure ulcers ranges from 7% to 45%. Various endotracheal tube fixations are used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. By pressure exercised on the skin, these systems could lead to mucosal and skin peri-oral lesions. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the two fixation systems most commonly used in French ICUs (adhesive elastic band versus fixation cord with PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) sheath) on the incidence of these peri-oral skin lesions.MethodsThis studyis a multicenter, open-label, controlled, superiority, cluster cross-over randomized trial. 768 patients will be recruited in the 16 ICUs involved. The inclusion of patients will be carried out over two 12-month periods. Each site begins with one of the evaluated fixation systems: elastic adhesive tape or cord associated with a protective sheath. After a 4-month break, each site switches to the other fixation system. The primary outcome is the development of at least one peri-oral lesion during the first ten days of maintaining an orally inserted endotracheal tube. The presence of lesions is assessed by a blinded adjudication committee using photographs taken daily.DiscussionThis study is the first multicenter, randomized trial designed to evaluate the impact of elastic adhesive tape versus fixation cord with PVC sheath on the incidence of peri-oral lesions. The results will provide data which could change and standardize care practices.Trial registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Reference number: NCT04819425

SPIRIT checklist.

BackgroundEndotracheal tube fixation in ventilated patients must be appropriate to ensure security during mechanical ventilation and prevent skin lesions. The incidence of endotracheal tube‐caused pressure ulcers ranges from 7% to 45%. Various endotracheal tube fixations are used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. By pressure exercised on the skin, these systems could lead to mucosal and skin peri-oral lesions. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the two fixation systems most commonly used in French ICUs (adhesive elastic band versus fixation cord with PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) sheath) on the incidence of these peri-oral skin lesions.MethodsThis studyis a multicenter, open-label, controlled, superiority, cluster cross-over randomized trial. 768 patients will be recruited in the 16 ICUs involved. The inclusion of patients will be carried out over two 12-month periods. Each site begins with one of the evaluated fixation systems: elastic adhesive tape or cord associated with a protective sheath. After a 4-month break, each site switches to the other fixation system. The primary outcome is the development of at least one peri-oral lesion during the first ten days of maintaining an orally inserted endotracheal tube. The presence of lesions is assessed by a blinded adjudication committee using photographs taken daily.DiscussionThis study is the first multicenter, randomized trial designed to evaluate the impact of elastic adhesive tape versus fixation cord with PVC sheath on the incidence of peri-oral lesions. The results will provide data which could change and standardize care practices.Trial registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Reference number: NCT04819425.</div

Schedule of enrolment, interventions and assessments.

Schedule of enrolment, interventions and assessments.</p

Two methods of ETT fixation system used in the study.

On the left: fixation by cord and PVC sheath, on the right: fixation with elastic adhesive tape.</p

Clinical study protocol.

BackgroundEndotracheal tube fixation in ventilated patients must be appropriate to ensure security during mechanical ventilation and prevent skin lesions. The incidence of endotracheal tube‐caused pressure ulcers ranges from 7% to 45%. Various endotracheal tube fixations are used in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. By pressure exercised on the skin, these systems could lead to mucosal and skin peri-oral lesions. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the two fixation systems most commonly used in French ICUs (adhesive elastic band versus fixation cord with PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) sheath) on the incidence of these peri-oral skin lesions.MethodsThis studyis a multicenter, open-label, controlled, superiority, cluster cross-over randomized trial. 768 patients will be recruited in the 16 ICUs involved. The inclusion of patients will be carried out over two 12-month periods. Each site begins with one of the evaluated fixation systems: elastic adhesive tape or cord associated with a protective sheath. After a 4-month break, each site switches to the other fixation system. The primary outcome is the development of at least one peri-oral lesion during the first ten days of maintaining an orally inserted endotracheal tube. The presence of lesions is assessed by a blinded adjudication committee using photographs taken daily.DiscussionThis study is the first multicenter, randomized trial designed to evaluate the impact of elastic adhesive tape versus fixation cord with PVC sheath on the incidence of peri-oral lesions. The results will provide data which could change and standardize care practices.Trial registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Reference number: NCT04819425.</div