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

Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study

Abstract Purpose: Despite the benefits of mechanical ventilation, its use in critically ill patients is associated with complications and had led to the growth of non-invasive techniques. We assessed the effect of early intubation (first 8 hours after vasopressor start) in septic shock patients, as compared to non-early-intubated subjects (unexposed), regarding in-hospital mortality, intensive care and hospital length of stay. Methods: Secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective study. To adjust for baseline differences in potential confounders, propensity score matching was carried out. In-hospital mortality was analyzed in a time-to-event fashion while length of stay was assessed as a median difference using bootstrapping. Results: 735 patients (137 intubated in the first 8 hours) were evaluated. Propensity score matching identified 78 pairs with similar severity and characteristics on admission. Intubation was used in all patients in the early intubation group and in 27 (35%) subjects beyond 8 hours in the unexposed group. Mortality occurred in 35 (45%) and in 26 (33%) subjects in the early intubation and unexposed groups (hazard ratio 1.44 95% CI 0.86-2.39, p=0.16). ICU and hospital length of stay were not different among groups [9 vs 5 (95% CI 1 to 7) and 14 vs 16 (95% CI -7 to 8) days]. All sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusions: An early approach to invasive mechanical ventilation did not improve outcomes in this matched cohort of patients. The limited number of patients included in these analyses out the total number included in the study may limit generalizability of these findings. Trial registration: NCT02780466. Registered on May 19th, 2016.</jats:p

Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study

Abstract Purpose Despite the benefits of mechanical ventilation, its use in critically ill patients is associated with complications and had led to the growth of noninvasive techniques. We assessed the effect of early intubation (first 8 h after vasopressor start) in septic shock patients, as compared to non-early intubated subjects (unexposed), regarding in-hospital mortality, intensive care and hospital length of stay. Methods This study involves secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective study. To adjust for baseline differences in potential confounders, propensity score matching was carried out. In-hospital mortality was analyzed in a time-to-event fashion, while length of stay was assessed as a median difference using bootstrapping. Results A total of 735 patients (137 intubated in the first 8 h) were evaluated. Propensity score matching identified 78 pairs with similar severity and characteristics on admission. Intubation was used in all patients in the early intubation group and in 27 (35%) subjects beyond 8 h in the unexposed group. Mortality occurred in 35 (45%) and in 26 (33%) subjects in the early intubation and unexposed groups (hazard ratio 1.44 95% CI 0.86–2.39, p = 0.16). ICU and hospital length of stay were not different among groups [9 vs. 5 (95% CI 1 to 7) and 14 vs. 16 (95% CI − 7 to 8) days]. All sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings. Conclusions An early approach to invasive mechanical ventilation did not improve outcomes in this matched cohort of patients. The limited number of patients included in these analyses out the total number included in the study may limit generalizability of these findings. Trial registration NCT02780466. Registered on May 19, 2016. </jats:sec

Additional file 1 of Early intubation and patient-centered outcomes in septic shock: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study

Additional file 1. Additional information on Methods. Additional Results

Hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone for community acquired pneumonia-related septic shock: a subgroup analysis of the APROCCHSS phase 3 randomised trial

International audienceBackground: Glucocorticoids probably improve outcomes in patients hospitalised for community acquired pneumonia (CAP). In this a priori planned exploratory subgroup analysis of the phase 3 randomised controlled Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock (APROCCHSS) trial, we aimed to investigate responses to hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone between CAP and non-CAP related septic shock.Methods: APROCCHSS was a randomised controlled trial that investigated the effects of hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, drotrecogin-alfa (activated), or both on mortality in septic shock in a two-by-two factorial design; after drotrecogin-alfa was withdrawn on October 2011, from the market, the trial continued on two parallel groups. It was conducted in 34 centres in France. In this subgroup study, patients with CAP were a preselected subgroup for an exploratory secondary analysis of the APROCCHSS trial of hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone in septic shock. Adults with septic shock were randomised 1:1 to receive, in a double-blind manner, a 7-day treatment with daily administration of intravenous hydrocortisone 50 mg bolus every 6h and a tablet of 50 μg of fludrocortisone via the nasogastric tube, or their placebos. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge, 28-day and 180-day mortality, the number of days alive and free of vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, or organ failure, and ICU and hospital free-days to 90-days. Analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00625209).Findings: Of 1241 patients included in the APROCCHSS trial, CAP could not be ruled in or out in 31 patients, 562 had a diagnosis of CAP (279 in the placebo group and 283 in the corticosteroid group), and 648 patients did not have CAP (329 in the placebo group and 319 in the corticosteroid group). In patients with CAP, there were 109 (39%) deaths of 283 patients at day 90 with hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone and 143 (51%) of 279 patients receiving placebo (odds ratio [OR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·43-0·83). In patients without CAP, there were 148 (46%) deaths of 319 patients at day 90 in the hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone group and 157 (48%) of 329 patients in the placebo group (OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·70-1·29). There was significant heterogeneity in corticosteroid effects on 90-day mortality across subgroups with CAP and without CAP (p=0·046 for both multiplicative and additive interaction tests; moderate credibility). Of 1241 patients included in the APROCCHSS trial, 648 (52%) had ARDS (328 in the placebo group and 320 in the corticosteroid group). There were 155 (48%) deaths of 320 patients at day 90 in the corticosteroid group and 186 (57%) of 328 patients in the placebo group. The OR for death at day 90 was 0·72 (95% CI 0·53-0·98) in patients with ARDS and 0·85 (0·61-1·20) in patients without ARDS (p=0·45 for multiplicative interaction and p=0·42 for additive interaction). The OR for observing at least one serious adverse event (corticosteroid group vs placebo) within 180 days post randomisation was 0·64 (95% CI 0·46-0·89) in the CAP subgroup and 1·02 (0·75-1·39) in the non-CAP subgroup (p=0·044 for multiplicative interaction and p=0·042 for additive interaction).Interpretation: In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the APROCCHSS trial of patients with CAP and septic shock, hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone reduced mortality as compared with placebo. Although a large proportion of patients with CAP also met criteria for ARDS, the subgroup analysis was underpowered to fully discriminate between ARDS and CAP modifying effects on mortality reduction with corticosteroids. There was no evidence of a significant treatment effect of corticosteroids in the non-CAP subgroup.Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique of the French Ministry of Health, by Programme d'Investissements d'Avenir, France 2030, and IAHU-ANR-0004

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

International audienc