Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock.

Background Whether hydrocortisone reduces mortality among patients with septic shock is unclear. Methods We randomly assigned patients with septic shock who were undergoing mechanical ventilation to receive hydrocortisone (at a dose of 200 mg per day) or placebo for 7 days or until death or discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), whichever came first. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Results From March 2013 through April 2017, a total of 3800 patients underwent randomization. Status with respect to the primary outcome was ascertained in 3658 patients (1832 of whom had been assigned to the hydrocortisone group and 1826 to the placebo group). At 90 days, 511 patients (27.9%) in the hydrocortisone group and 526 (28.8%) in the placebo group had died (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.10; P=0.50). The effect of the trial regimen was similar in six prespecified subgroups. Patients who had been assigned to receive hydrocortisone had faster resolution of shock than those assigned to the placebo group (median duration, 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 5] vs. 4 days [interquartile range, 2 to 9]; hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.41; P<0.001). Patients in the hydrocortisone group had a shorter duration of the initial episode of mechanical ventilation than those in the placebo group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 3 to 18] vs. 7 days [interquartile range, 3 to 24]; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.22; P<0.001), but taking into account episodes of recurrence of ventilation, there were no significant differences in the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Fewer patients in the hydrocortisone group than in the placebo group received a blood transfusion (37.0% vs. 41.7%; odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.004). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to mortality at 28 days, the rate of recurrence of shock, the number of days alive and out of the ICU, the number of days alive and out of the hospital, the recurrence of mechanical ventilation, the rate of renal-replacement therapy, and the incidence of new-onset bacteremia or fungemia. Conclusions Among patients with septic shock undergoing mechanical ventilation, a continuous infusion of hydrocortisone did not result in lower 90-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADRENAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01448109 .)

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

Continuation of statin therapy in patients with presumed infection: A randomized controlled trial

Rationale: In patients on prior statin therapywhoare hospitalized for acute infections, current literature is unclear on whether statins should be continued during their hospitalization. Objectives: To test the hypothesis that continuation of therapy with statins influences the inflammatory response to infection and that cessation may cause an inflammatory rebound. Methods: Prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of atorvastatin (20 mg) or matched placebo in 150 patients on preexisting statin therapy requiring hospitalization for infection. Measurements and Main Results: The primary end point was progression of sepsis during hospitalization. At baseline, the rate of severe sepsis was 32% in both groups. Compared with baseline, the odds ratio for severe sepsis declined in both groups: 0.43 placebo and 0.5 statins (Day 3) versus 0.14 placebo and 0.12 statins (Day 14). The rate of decline of severe sepsis was similar between the groups (odds ratio 1.17 [0.56-2.47], P = 0.7 Day 3; 0.85 [0.21-3.34], P = 0.8 Day 14). IL-6 and C-reactive protein declined in both groups with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.7 and P = 0.2, respectively). An increase in cholesterol occurred in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Most patients were not critically ill. Hospital mortality was 6.6%, with no difference between the groups (6 [8%] of 75 statin group; 4 [5.3%] of 75 placebo group; P = 0.75). Conclusions: This study does not support a beneficial role of continuing preexisting statin therapy on sepsis and inflammatory parameters. Cessation of established statin therapy was not associated with an inflammatory rebound. Clinical trial registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12605000756628)

Randomised evaluation of active control of temperature versus ordinary temperature management (REACTOR) trial

Purpose: It is unknown whether protocols targeting systematic prevention and treatment of fever achieve lower mean body temperature than usual care in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The objective of the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of temperature vs. ORdinary temperature management trial was to confrm the feasibility of such a protocol with a view to conducting a larger trial. Methods: We randomly assigned 184 adults without acute brain pathologies who had a fever in the previous 12 h, and were expected to be ventilated beyond the calendar day after recruitment, to systematic prevention and treatment of fever or usual care. The primary outcome was mean body temperature in the ICU within 7 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU-free days and survival time censored at hospital discharge. Results: Compared with usual temperature management, active management signifcantly reduced mean temperature. In both groups, fever generally abated within 72 h. The mean temperature diference between groups was greatest in the frst 48 h, when it was generally in the order of 0.5 °C. Overall, 23 of 89 patients assigned to active management (25.8%) and 23 of 89 patients assigned to usual management (25.8%) died in hospital (odds ratio 1.0, 95% CI 0.51–1.96, P=1.0). There were no statistically signifcant diferences between groups in ICU-free days or survival to day 90. Conclusions: Active temperature management reduced body temperature compared with usual care; however, fever abated rapidly, even in patients assigned to usual care, and the magnitude of temperature separation was small.The REACTOR study was endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group and funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (16/488). The study was coordinated by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand in New Zealand and the George Institute for Global Health in Australia. The Medical Research Institute of New Zealand is supported by Independent Research Organisation funding by the Health Research Council of New Zealan

The ADRENAL study protocol: ADjunctive corticosteroid tREatment iN criticAlly ilL patients with septic shock

There is considerable global uncertainty on the role of low-dose corticosteroids in septic shock, which translates into variations in prescribing practices.To describe the protocol for a large-scale multicentre randomised controlled trial in critically ill patients with septic shock, comparing the effects of hydrocortisone and placebo (in addition to standard treatment) on 90-day mortality and other outcomes such as shock reversal, duration of mechanical ventilation and quality of life.We will recruit 3800 critically ill patients with septic shock treated in an intensive care unit, to concealed, randomised, parallel assignment of hydrocortisone or placebo. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 90 days postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes will include ICU and hospital mortality, length of ICU stay and quality of life at 6 months. Subgroup analyses will be conducted in two predefined subgroups. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.The run-in phase has been completed and the main trial commenced in February 2013. The trial should generate results that will inform and influence prescribing of corticosteroids in septic shock

A multicenter randomized trial of atorvastatin therapy in intensive care patients with severe sepsis

Survivors of sepsis syndromes have poor outcomes for physical and cognitive function. No investigations of early physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit have specifically targeted patients with sepsis syndromes

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial

BACKGROUND: Body temperature can be reduced in febrile patients in the intensive care unit using medicines and physical cooling devices, but it is not known whether systematically preventing and treating fever reduces body temperature compared with standard care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a phase II, multicentre trial to be conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs admitting adult patients. We will recruit 184 adults without acute brain injury who are expected to be ventilated in the ICU beyond the day after randomisation. We will use open, random, parallel assignment to systematic prevention and treatment of fever, or to standard temperature management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point will be mean body temperature, calculated from body temperatures measured 6-hourly for 7 days (168 hours) or until ICU discharge, whichever is sooner. Secondary end points are ICU-free days, in-hospital and cause-specific mortality (censored at Day 90) and survival time to Day 90 (censored at hospital discharge). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether active temperature control reduces body temperature compared with standard care. It is primarily being conducted to establish whether a phase III trial with a patient-centred end point of Day 90 mortality is justified and feasible.Funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (16/488). The study is coordinated in New Zealand by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand (MRINZ) and in Australia by the the George Institute for Global Health. The MRINZ is supported by research organisation funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial

BACKGROUND: Body temperature can be reduced in febrile patients in the intensive care unit using medicines and physical cooling devices, but it is not known whether systematically preventing and treating fever reduces body temperature compared with standard care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a phase II, multicentre trial to be conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs admitting adult patients. We will recruit 184 adults without acute brain injury who are expected to be ventilated in the ICU beyond the day after randomisation. We will use open, random, parallel assignment to systematic prevention and treatment of fever, or to standard temperature management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point will be mean body temperature, calculated from body temperatures measured 6-hourly for 7 days (168 hours) or until ICU discharge, whichever is sooner. Secondary end points are ICU-free days, in-hospital and cause-specific mortality (censored at Day 90) and survival time to Day 90 (censored at hospital discharge). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether active temperature control reduces body temperature compared with standard care. It is primarily being conducted to establish whether a phase III trial with a patient-centred end point of Day 90 mortality is justified and feasible.Our study is endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group and funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (16/488). The study is coordinated in New Zealand by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand (MRINZ) and in Australia by the the George Institute for Global Health. The MRINZ is supported by research organisation funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand