The effect of iron deficiency and anaemia on women's health

Iron deficiency and anaemia are global health problems and major causes of morbidity in women. Current definitions of anaemia in women are historic and have been challenged by recent data from observational studies. Menstrual loss, abnormal uterine bleeding and pregnancy put women at risk of developing iron deficiency which can result in severe fatigue, reduced exercise capacity and poor work performance. Iron deficiency and anaemia during pregnancy are associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, including neurocognitive deficits in children born to iron-deficient mothers. Both iron deficiency and anaemia are common in women undergoing surgery but their association with poor outcomes remains uncertain. The enduring burden of iron deficiency and anaemia in women suggests that current strategies for recognition, prevention and treatment are limited in their utility. Improvements in our understanding of iron homeostasis and the development of new iron preparations, which are better absorbed with fewer side-effects, may improve therapeutic effectiveness of oral iron. Intravenous iron is efficacious for correcting anaemia rapidly but high-quality data on patient-centred outcomes and cost-effectiveness are currently lacking. Many recommendations for the treatment of iron deficiency and anaemia in national guidelines are not supported by high-quality evidence. There is a need for robust epidemiological data and well-designed clinical trials. The latter will require collaborative working between researchers and patients to design studies in ways that incorporate patients’ perspectives on the research process and target outcomes that matter to them

Two-year outcomes following a randomised platelet transfusion trial in preterm infants

Objective: Assess mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 years of corrected age in children who participated in the PlaNeT-2/MATISSE (Platelets for Neonatal Transfusion - 2/Management of Thrombocytopenia in Special Subgroup) study, which reported that a higher platelet transfusion threshold was associated with significantly increased mortality or major bleeding compared to a lower one. Design: Randomised clinical trial, enrolling from June 2011 to August 2017. Follow-up was complete by January 2020. Caregivers were not blinded; however, outcome assessors were blinded to treatment group. Setting: 43 level II/III/IV neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) across UK, Netherlands and Ireland. Patients: 660 infants born at less than 34 weeks' gestation with platelet counts less than 50×109/L. Interventions: Infants were randomised to undergo a platelet transfusion at platelet count thresholds of 50×109/L (higher threshold group) or 25×109/L (lower threshold group). Main outcomes measures: Our prespecified long-term follow-up outcome was a composite of death or neurodevelopmental impairment (developmental delay, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, profound hearing or vision loss) at 2 years of corrected age. Results: Follow-up data were available for 601 of 653 (92%) eligible participants. Of the 296 infants assigned to the higher threshold group, 147 (50%) died or survived with neurodevelopmental impairment, as compared with 120 (39%) of 305 infants assigned to the lower threshold group (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.17, p=0.017). Conclusions: Infants randomised to a higher platelet transfusion threshold of 50×109/L compared with 25×109/L had a higher rate of death or significant neurodevelopmental impairment at a corrected age of 2 years. This further supports evidence of harm caused by high prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds in preterm infants. Trial registration number: ISRCTN87736839

Age of Transfused Blood in Critically Ill Adults

International audienceBetween March 2009 and May 2014, at 64 centers in Canada and Europe, 1211 patients were assigned to receive fresh red cells (fresh-blood group) and 1219 patients were assigned to receive standard-issue red cells (standard-blood group). Red cells were stored a mean (±SD) of 6.1±4.9 days in the fresh-blood group as compared with 22.0±8.4 days in the standard-blood group (P<0.001). At 90 days, 448 patients (37.0%) in the fresh-blood group and 430 patients (35.3%) in the standard-blood group had died (absolute risk difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 5.5). In the survival analysis, the hazard ratio for death in the fresh-blood group, as compared with the standard-blood group, was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9 to 1.2; P=0.38). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes (major illnesses; duration of respiratory, hemodynamic, or renal support; length of stay in the hospital; and transfusion reactions) or in the subgroup analyses.CONCLUSIONS:Transfusion of fresh red cells, as compared with standard-issue red cells, did not decrease the 90-day mortality among critically ill adults

Early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate for hemorrhage after traumatic injury: The CRYOSTAT-2 randomized clinical trial

Critical bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate in patients with trauma. Hemorrhage is exacerbated by a complex derangement of coagulation, including an acute fibrinogen deficiency. Management is fibrinogen replacement with cryoprecipitate transfusions or fibrinogen concentrate, usually administered relatively late during hemorrhage. To assess whether survival could be improved by administering an early and empirical high dose of cryoprecipitate to all patients with trauma and bleeding that required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol. CRYOSTAT-2 was an interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled, international, multicenter study. Patients were enrolled at 26 UK and US major trauma centers from August 2017 to November 2021. Eligible patients were injured adults requiring activation of the hospital's major hemorrhage protocol with evidence of active hemorrhage, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at any time, and receiving at least 1 U of a blood component transfusion. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive standard care, which was the local major hemorrhage protocol (reviewed for guideline adherence), or cryoprecipitate, in which 3 pools of cryoprecipitate (6-g fibrinogen equivalent) were to be administered in addition to standard care within 90 minutes of randomization and 3 hours of injury. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days in the intention-to-treat population. Among 1604 eligible patients, 799 were randomized to the cryoprecipitate group and 805 to the standard care group. Missing primary outcome data occurred in 73 patients (principally due to withdrawal of consent) and 1531 (95%) were included in the primary analysis population. The median (IQR) age of participants was 39 (26-55) years, 1251 (79%) were men, median (IQR) Injury Severity Score was 29 (18-43), 36% had penetrating injury, and 33% had systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at hospital arrival. All-cause 28-day mortality in the intention-to-treat population was 26.1% in the standard care group vs 25.3% in the cryoprecipitate group (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.75-1.23]; P = .74). There was no difference in safety outcomes or incidence of thrombotic events in the standard care vs cryoprecipitate group (12.9% vs 12.7%). Among patients with trauma and bleeding who required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol, the addition of early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate to standard care did not improve all cause 28-day mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04704869; ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN14998314

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

Effects of a high-dose 24-h infusion of tranexamic acid on death and thromboembolic events in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (HALT-IT): an international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Tranexamic acid reduces surgical bleeding and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma. Meta-analyses of small trials show that tranexamic acid might decrease deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to assess the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods: We did an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 164 hospitals in 15 countries. Patients were enrolled if the responsible clinician was uncertain whether to use tranexamic acid, were aged above the minimum age considered an adult in their country (either aged 16 years and older or aged 18 years and older), and had significant (defined as at risk of bleeding to death) upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients were randomly assigned by selection of a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients received either a loading dose of 1 g tranexamic acid, which was added to 100 mL infusion bag of 0·9% sodium chloride and infused by slow intravenous injection over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 3 g tranexamic acid added to 1 L of any isotonic intravenous solution and infused at 125 mg/h for 24 h, or placebo (sodium chloride 0·9%). Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation; analysis excluded patients who received neither dose of the allocated treatment and those for whom outcome data on death were unavailable. This trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN11225767, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01658124. Findings: Between July 4, 2013, and June 21, 2019, we randomly allocated 12 009 patients to receive tranexamic acid (5994, 49·9%) or matching placebo (6015, 50·1%), of whom 11 952 (99·5%) received the first dose of the allocated treatment. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (4%) of 5956 patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (4%) of 5981 patients in the placebo group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·82–1·18). Arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar in the tranexamic acid group and placebo group (42 [0·7%] of 5952 vs 46 [0·8%] of 5977; 0·92; 0·60 to 1·39). Venous thromboembolic events (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) were higher in tranexamic acid group than in the placebo group (48 [0·8%] of 5952 vs 26 [0·4%] of 5977; RR 1·85; 95% CI 1·15 to 2·98). Interpretation: We found that tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding. On the basis of our results, tranexamic acid should not be used for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding outside the context of a randomised trial

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified. Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700