Design and Organization of the Dexamethasone, Light Anesthesia and Tight Glucose Control (DeLiT) Trial: a factorial trial evaluating the effects of corticosteroids, glucose control, and depth-of-anesthesia on perioperative inflammation and morbidity from major non-cardiac surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The perioperative period is characterized by an intense inflammatory response. Perioperative inflammation promotes postoperative morbidity and increases mortality. Blunting the inflammatory response to surgical trauma might thus improve perioperative outcomes. We are studying three interventions that potentially modulate perioperative inflammation: corticosteroids, tight glucose control, and light anesthesia.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The DeLiT Trial is a factorial randomized single-center trial of dexamethasone vs placebo, intraoperative tight vs. conventional glucose control, and light vs deep anesthesia in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Anesthetic depth will be estimated with Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring (Aspect medical, Newton, MA). The primary outcome is a composite of major postoperative morbidity including myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis, and 30-day mortality. C-reactive protein, a measure of the inflammatory response, will be evaluated as a secondary outcome. One-year all-cause mortality as well as post-operative delirium will be additional secondary outcomes. We will enroll up to 970 patients which will provide 90% power to detect a 40% reduction in the primary outcome, including interim analyses for efficacy and futility at 25%, 50% and 75% enrollment.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The DeLiT trial started in February 2007. We expect to reach our second interim analysis point in 2010. This large randomized controlled trial will provide a reliable assessment of the effects of corticosteroids, glucose control, and depth-of-anesthesia on perioperative inflammation and morbidity from major non-cardiac surgery. The factorial design will enable us to simultaneously study the effects of the three interventions in the same population, both individually and in different combinations. Such a design is an economically efficient way to study the three interventions in one clinical trial vs three.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><b>This trial is registered at </b>Clinicaltrials.gov <b>#</b>: NTC00433251</p

Insulin resistance, adiponectin and adverse outcomes following elective cardiac surgery: a prospective follow-up study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Insulin resistance and adiponectin are markers of cardio-metabolic disease and associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The present study examined whether preoperative insulin resistance or adiponectin were associated with short- and long-term adverse outcomes in non-diabetic patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective study, we assessed insulin resistance and adiponectin levels from preoperative fasting blood samples in 836 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Population-based medical registries were used for postoperative follow-up. Outcomes included all-cause death, myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention, stroke, re-exploration, renal failure, and infections. The ability of insulin resistance and adiponectin to predict clinical adverse outcomes was examined using receiver operating characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Neither insulin resistance nor adiponectin were statistically significantly associated with 30-day mortality, but adiponectin was associated with an increased 31-365-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 2.9 [95% confidence interval 1.3-6.4]) comparing the upper quartile with the three lower quartiles. Insulin resistance was a poor predictor of adverse outcomes. In contrast, the predictive accuracy of adiponectin (area under curve 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.65-0.85]) was similar to that of the EuroSCORE (area under curve 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.67-0.83]) and a model including adiponectin and the EuroSCORE had an area under curve of 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.68-0.88] concerning 31-365-day mortality.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Elevated adiponectin levels, but not insulin resistance, were associated with increased mortality and appear to be a strong predictor of long-term mortality. Additional studies are warranted to further clarify the possible clinical role of adiponectin assessment in cardiac surgery.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>The Danish Data Protection Agency; reference no. 2007-41-1514.</p

Preexisting and de novo humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in humans

Zoonotic introduction of novel coronaviruses may encounter preexisting immunity in humans. Using diverse assays for antibodies recognizing SARS-CoV-2 proteins, we detect preexisting humoral immunity. SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (S)-reactive antibodies were detectable by a flow cytometry-based method in SARS-CoV-2-uninfected individuals and were particularly prevalent in children and adolescents. They were predominantly of the IgG class and targeted the S2 subunit. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection induced higher titers of SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive IgG antibodies, targeting both the S1 and S2 subunits, and concomitant IgM and IgA antibodies, lasting throughout the observation period. Notably, SARS-CoV-2-uninfected donor sera exhibited specific neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-2 S pseudotypes. Distinguishing preexisting and de novo immunity will be critical for our understanding of susceptibility to and the natural course of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The GRADE System for Rating Clinical Guidelines

Brian Kavanagh critiques the GRADE system of grading guidelines, arguing that even though it has evolved through the Evidence-Based Medicine movement, there is no evidence that GRADE itself is reliable

Reappraisal of Metformin Efficacy in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Catherine Cornu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of metformin efficacy on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed that although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain

A core outcome set for evaluating self-management interventions in people with comorbid diabetes and severe mental illness : study protocol for a modified Delphi study and systematic review

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes and comorbid severe mental illness (SMI) form a growing population at risk of increased mortality and morbidity compared to those with diabetes or SMI alone. There is increasing interest in interventions that target diabetes in SMI in order to help to improve physical health and reduce the associated health inequalities. However, there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are important for this comorbid population, with trials differing in their focus on physical and mental health. A core outcome set, which includes outcomes across both conditions that are relevant to patients and other key stakeholders, is needed. METHODS: This study protocol describes methods to develop a core outcome set for use in effectiveness trials of self-management interventions for adults with comorbid type-2 diabetes and SMI. We will use a modified Delphi method to identify, rank, and agree core outcomes. This will comprise a two-round online survey and multistakeholder workshops involving patients and carers, health and social care professionals, health care commissioners, and other experts (e.g. academic researchers and third sector organisations). We will also select appropriate measurement tools for each outcome in the proposed core set and identify gaps in measures, where these exist. DISCUSSION: The proposed core outcome set will provide clear guidance about what outcomes should be measured, as a minimum, in trials of interventions for people with coexisting type-2 diabetes and SMI, and improve future synthesis of trial evidence in this area. We will also explore the challenges of using online Delphi methods for this hard-to-reach population, and examine differences in opinion about which outcomes matter to diverse stakeholder groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COMET registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/911 . Registered on 1 July 2016

Why Are Clinicians Not Embracing the Results from Pivotal Clinical Trials in Severe Sepsis? A Bayesian Analysis

BACKGROUND: Five pivotal clinical trials (Intensive Insulin Therapy; Recombinant Human Activated Protein C [rhAPC]; Low-Tidal Volume; Low-Dose Steroid; Early Goal-Directed Therapy [EGDT]) demonstrated mortality reduction in patients with severe sepsis and expert guidelines have recommended them to clinical practice. Yet, the adoption of these therapies remains low among clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We selected these five trials and asked: Question 1--What is the current probability that the new therapy is not better than the standard of care in my patient with severe sepsis? Question 2--What is the current probability of reducing the relative risk of death (RRR) of my patient with severe sepsis by meaningful clinical thresholds (RRR >15%; >20%; >25%)? METHODS: Bayesian methodologies were applied to this study. Odds ratio (OR) was considered for Question 1, and RRR was used for Question 2. We constructed prior distributions (enthusiastic; mild, moderate, and severe skeptic) based on various effective sample sizes of other relevant clinical trials (unfavorable evidence). Posterior distributions were calculated by combining the prior distributions and the data from pivotal trials (favorable evidence). MAIN FINDINGS: Answer 1--The analysis based on mild skeptic prior shows beneficial results with the Intensive Insulin, rhAPC, and Low-Tidal Volume trials, but not with the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. All trials' results become unacceptable by the analyses using moderate or severe skeptic priors. Answer 2--If we aim for a RRR>15%, the mild skeptic analysis shows that the current probability of reducing death by this clinical threshold is 88% for the Intensive Insulin, 62-65% for the Low-Tidal Volume, rhAPC, EGDT trials, and 17% for the Low-Dose Steroid trial. The moderate and severe skeptic analyses show no clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death for all trials. If we aim for a RRR >20% or >25%, all probabilities of benefits become lower independent of the degree of skepticism. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical threshold analysis offers a new bedside tool to be directly applied to the care of patients with severe sepsis. Our results demonstrate that the strength of evidence (statistical and clinical) is weak for all trials, particularly for the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. It is essential to replicate the results of each of these five clinical trials in confirmatory studies if we want to provide patient care based on scientifically sound evidence

International recommendations for glucose control in adult non diabetic critically ill patients

The purpose of this research is to provide recommendations for the management of glycemic control in critically ill patients.Comparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedPour la Société Française d'Anesthésie-Réanimation (SFAR); Société de Réanimation de langue Française (SRLF) and the Experts grou