Thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusions in ICU patients: an international inception cohort study (PLOT-ICU)

Purpose Thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 150 × 109/L) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is likely associated with worse outcomes. In this study we present international contemporary data on thrombocytopenia in ICU patients. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in adult ICU patients in 52 ICUs across 10 countries. We assessed frequencies of thrombocytopenia, use of platelet transfusions and clinical outcomes including mortality. We evaluated pre-selected potential risk factors for the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay and associations between thrombocytopenia at ICU admission and 90-day mortality using pre-specified logistic regression analyses. Results We analysed 1166 ICU patients; the median age was 63 years and 39.5% were female. Overall, 43.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40.4–46.1) had thrombocytopenia; 23.4% (20–26) had thrombocytopenia at ICU admission, and 19.8% (17.6–22.2) developed thrombocytopenia during their ICU stay. Non-AIDS-, non-cancer-related immune deficiency, liver failure, male sex, septic shock, and bleeding at ICU admission were associated with the development of thrombocytopenia during ICU stay. Among patients with thrombocytopenia, 22.6% received platelet transfusion(s), and 64.3% of in-ICU transfusions were prophylactic. Patients with thrombocytopenia had higher occurrences of bleeding and death, fewer days alive without the use of life-support, and fewer days alive and out of hospital. Thrombocytopenia at ICU admission was associated with 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.7; 95% CI 1.19–2.42). Conclusion Thrombocytopenia occurred in 43% of critically ill patients and was associated with worse outcomes including increased mortality. Platelet transfusions were given to 23% of patients with thrombocytopenia and most were prophylactic.publishedVersio

Effect of anakinra versus usual care in adults in hospital with COVID-19 and mild-to-moderate pneumonia (CORIMUNO-ANA-1): a randomised controlled trial

International audienc

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia

International audienceImportance Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, Setting, and Particpants This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.Results Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0433180

Sarilumab in adults hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CORIMUNO-SARI-1): An open-label randomised controlled trial

International audienc

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID-19 (Bari-SolidAct): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

International audienceAbstract Background Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants. Methods Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures. Results Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49–69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI − 0.1% [− 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (− 3.2% [− 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities. Conclusion This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 )

Regional Practice Variation and Outcomes in the Standard Versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) Trial: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis.

ObjectivesAmong patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) admitted to the ICU in high-income countries, regional practice variations for fluid balance (FB) management, timing, and choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality may be significant.DesignSecondary post hoc analysis of the STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722).SettingOne hundred-fifty-three ICUs in 13 countries.PatientsAltogether 2693 critically ill patients with AKI, of whom 994 were North American, 1143 European, and 556 from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsTotal mean FB to a maximum of 14 days was +7199 mL in North America, +5641 mL in Europe, and +2211 mL in ANZ (p p p p p p p p = 0.007).ConclusionsAmong STARRT-AKI trial centers, significant regional practice variation exists regarding FB, timing of initiation of RRT, and initial use of continuous RRT. After adjustment, such practice variation was associated with lower ICU and hospital stay and 90-day mortality among ANZ patients compared with other regions

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial

Background Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero–one inflated beta regression. Results The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] − 3.30%; 3.40%], − 0.39% [95% CrI − 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI − 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of − 3.55 days [95% CrI − 6.38; − 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI − 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. Conclusions In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation