Between-trial heterogeneity in ARDS research

Purpose Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed indeterminate or conflicting study results. We aimed to systematically evaluate between-trial heterogeneity in reporting standards and trial outcome. Methods A systematic review of RCTs published between 2000 and 2019 was performed including adult ARDS patients receiving lung-protective ventilation. A random-effects meta-regression model was applied to quantify heterogeneity (non-random variability) and to evaluate trial and patient characteristics as sources of heterogeneity. Results In total, 67 RCTs were included. The 28-day control-group mortality rate ranged from 10 to 67% with large non-random heterogeneity (I2 = 88%, p < 0.0001). Reported baseline patient characteristics explained some of the outcome heterogeneity, but only six trials (9%) reported all four independently predictive variables (mean age, mean lung injury score, mean plateau pressure and mean arterial pH). The 28-day control group mortality adjusted for patient characteristics (i.e. the residual heterogeneity) ranged from 18 to 45%. Trials with significant benefit in the primary outcome reported a higher control group mortality than trials with an indeterminate outcome or harm (mean 28-day control group mortality: 44% vs. 28%; p = 0.001). Conclusion Among ARDS RCTs in the lung-protective ventilation era, there was large variability in the description of baseline characteristics and significant unexplainable heterogeneity in 28-day control group mortality. These findings signify problems with the generalizability of ARDS research and underline the urgent need for standardized reporting of trial and baseline characteristics

Lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation by titrating inspiratory support to diaphragm effort: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: Lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation is a novel concept that aims to limit the detrimental effects of mechanical ventilation on the diaphragm while remaining within limits of lung-protective ventilation. The premise is that low breathing effort under mechanical ventilation causes diaphragm atrophy, whereas excessive breathing effort induces diaphragm and lung injury. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to assess whether titration of inspiratory support based on diaphragm effort increases the time that patients have effort in a predefined “diaphragm-protective” range, without compromising lung-protective ventilation. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Mixed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Patients (n = 40) with respiratory failure ventilated in a partially-supported mode. INTERVENTIONS: In the intervention group, inspiratory support was titrated hourly to obtain transdiaphragmatic pressure swings in the predefined “diaphragm-protective” range (3–12 cm H2O). The control group received standard-of-care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Transdiaphragmatic pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and tidal volume were monitored continuously for 24 hours in both groups. In the intervention group, more breaths were within “diaphragm-protective” range compared with the control group (median 81%; interquartile range [64–86%] vs 35% [16–60%], respectively; p < 0.001). Dynamic transpulmonary pressures (20.5 ± 7.1 vs 18.5 ± 7.0 cm H2O; p = 0.321) and tidal volumes (7.56 ± 1.47 vs 7.54 ± 1.22 mL/kg; p = 0.961) were not different in the intervention and control group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Titration of inspiratory support based on patient breathing effort greatly increased the time that patients had diaphragm effort in the predefined “diaphragm-protective” range without compromising tidal volumes and transpulmonary pressures. This study provides a strong rationale for further studies powered on patient-centered outcomes

Indication and Prognostication

The decision to admit or not admit a patient to the intensive care unit (ICU), thus increasing the intensity of care, should be the result of medical expertise regarding the reversibility of the acute condition that led to the failure of vital organ systems, in accordance with the will of the patient. Since all required information may not be available in the acute situation, nor the certainty of the effectiveness of intensified treatment in the ICU, admission of the patient for a predetermined time period to see any improvement and reversibility may be advisable. This holds especially true for the unknown patient with limited available documentation, seen in an emergency department. Ideally, different scenarios were discussed previously and electively with physicians involved, the patient, and the family. Taking time is important and can be used to collect all required information while also observing the effect of the implemented therapies in the ICU since a patient can die only once. The use of scoring systems for the individual patient to determine indication and prognostication for treatment in an ICU is of limited value

The cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) TaqIB variant, HDL cholesterol levels, cardiovascular risk and the efficacy of pravastatin treatment – an individual patient meta-analisis of 13,677 subjects

Several studies have reported that the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) TaqIB gene polymorphism is associated with HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), but the results are inconsistent. In addition, an interaction has been implicated between this genetic variant and pravastatin treatment, but this has not been confirmed. A meta-analysis was performed on individual patient data from 7 large, population-based studies (each >500 individuals) and 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, pravastatin trials. Linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the relation between TaqIB genotype and HDL-C levels and CAD risk. After adjustment for study, age, sex, smoking, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, LDL-C, use of alcohol, and prevalence of CAD, TaqIB genotype exhibited a highly significant association with HDL-C levels, such that B2B2 individuals had 0.11 mmol/L (0.10 to 0.12, P<0.0001) higher HDL-C levels than did B1B1 individuals. Second, after adjustment for study, sex, age, smoking, BMI, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, LDL-C, and use of alcohol, TaqIB genotype was significantly associated with the risk of CAD (odds ratio=0.78 [0.66 to 0.93]) in B2B2 individuals compared with B1B1 individuals (P for linearity=0.008). Additional adjustment for HDL-C levels rendered a loss of statistical significance (P=0.4). Last, no pharmacogenetic interaction between TaqIB genotype and pravastatin treatment could be demonstrated. The CETP TaqIB variant is firmly associated with HDL-C plasma levels and as a result, with the risk of CAD. Importantly, this CETP variant does not influence the response to pravastatin therap