| 1. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48:1, s. 45-55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. Methods We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. Results The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. Conclusion We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.
|
|
| 2. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:5, s. 702-710
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. Discussion This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.
|
|
| 3. |
- Granholm, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : SPRINGER. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 48, s. 580-589
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. Methods We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. Results We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.
|
|
| 4. |
- Munch, Marie W., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 326:18, s. 1807-1817
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Question What is the effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of dexamethasone on the number of days alive without life support at 28 days in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia? Findings In this randomized trial that included 1000 patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, treatment with 12 mg/d of dexamethasone resulted in 22.0 days alive without life support at 28 days compared with 20.5 days in those receiving 6 mg/d of dexamethasone. This difference was not statistically significant. Meaning Compared with 6 mg of dexamethasone, 12 mg of dexamethasone did not statistically significantly reduce the number of days alive without life support at 28 days. This multicenter randomized clinical trial compares the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. IMPORTANCE A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and >= 1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). RESULTS Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.
|
|
| 5. |
- Munch, Marie Warrer, et al.
(författare)
-
Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial : Protocol and statistical analysis plan
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 65:6, s. 834-845
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low-dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID-19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 is unclear. Methods The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all-cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health-related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol. Discussion The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.
|
|
| 6. |
- Perner, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.4 versus Ringer's Acetate in Severe Sepsis
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 367:2, s. 124-134
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 is widely used for fluid resuscitation in intensive care units (ICUs), but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis. METHODS In this multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to fluid resuscitation in the ICU with either 6% HES 130/0.4 or Ringer's acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. The primary outcome measure was either death or end-stage kidney failure (dependence on dialysis) at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.4 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36; P=0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.4 were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P=0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P=0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline. CONCLUSIONS Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.4 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringer's acetate.
|
|
| 7. |
- Aslam, Tayyba N., et al.
(författare)
-
A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 67:10, s. 1383-1394
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWhen caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers.MethodsWe distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.ConclusionsThe responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.
|
|
| 8. |
- Krag, Mette, et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence and outcome of gastrointestinal bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 41:5, s. 833-845
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To describe the prevalence of, risk factors for, and prognostic importance of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and use of acid suppressants in acutely ill adult intensive care patients. We included adults without GI bleeding who were acutely admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during a 7-day period. The primary outcome was clinically important GI bleeding in ICU, and the analyses included estimations of baseline risk factors and potential associations with 90-day mortality. A total of 1,034 patients in 97 ICUs in 11 countries were included. Clinically important GI bleeding occurred in 2.6 % (95 % confidence interval 1.6-3.6 %) of patients. The following variables at ICU admission were independently associated with clinically important GI bleeding: three or more co-existing diseases (odds ratio 8.9, 2.7-28.8), co-existing liver disease (7.6, 3.3-17.6), use of renal replacement therapy (6.9, 2.7-17.5), co-existing coagulopathy (5.2, 2.3-11.8), acute coagulopathy (4.2, 1.7-10.2), use of acid suppressants (3.6, 1.3-10.2) and higher organ failure score (1.4, 1.2-1.5). In ICU, 73 % (71-76 %) of patients received acid suppressants; most received proton pump inhibitors. In patients with clinically important GI bleeding, crude and adjusted odds for mortality were 3.7 (1.7-8.0) and 1.7 (0.7-4.3), respectively. In ICU patients clinically important GI bleeding is rare, and acid suppressants are frequently used. Co-existing diseases, liver failure, coagulopathy and organ failures are the main risk factors for GI bleeding. Clinically important GI bleeding was not associated with increased adjusted 90-day mortality, which largely can be explained by severity of comorbidity, other organ failures and age.
|
|
| 9. |
- Andreasen, Anne Sofie, et al.
(författare)
-
New-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill adult patients-an SSAI clinical practice guideline
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 67:8, s. 1110-1117
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Acute or new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill adult patients, and observational data suggests that NOAF is associated to adverse outcomes. Methods: We prepared this guideline according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We posed the following clinical questions: (1) what is the better first-line pharmacological agent for the treatment of NOAF in critically ill adult patients?, (2) should we use direct current (DC) cardioversion in critically ill adult patients with NOAF and hemodynamic instability caused by atrial fibrillation?, (3) should we use anticoagulant therapy in critically ill adult patients with NOAF?, and (4) should critically ill adult patients with NOAF receive follow-up after discharge from hospital? We assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality, thromboembolic events, and adverse events. Patients and relatives were part of the guideline panel. Results: The quantity and quality of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults was very limited, and we did not identify any relevant direct or indirect evidence from randomized clinical trials for the prespecified PICO questions. We were able to propose one weak recommendation against routine use of therapeutic dose anticoagulant therapy, and one best practice statement for routine follow-up by a cardiologist after hospital discharge. We were not able to propose any recommendations on the better first-line pharmacological agent or whether to use DC cardioversion in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability induced by NOAF. An electronic version of this guideline in layered and interactive format is available in MAGIC: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7197. Conclusions: The body of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults is very limited and not informed by direct evidence from randomized clinical trials. Practice variation appears considerable.
|
|
| 10. |
- Barrie, William, et al.
(författare)
-
Elevated genetic risk for multiple sclerosis emerged in steppe pastoralist populations
- 2024
-
Ingår i: NATURE. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 625:7994
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neuro-inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease that is most prevalent in Northern Europe. Although it is known that inherited risk for MS is located within or in close proximity to immune-related genes, it is unknown when, where and how this genetic risk originated1. Here, by using a large ancient genome dataset from the Mesolithic period to the Bronze Age2, along with new Medieval and post-Medieval genomes, we show that the genetic risk for MS rose among pastoralists from the Pontic steppe and was brought into Europe by the Yamnaya-related migration approximately 5,000 years ago. We further show that these MS-associated immunogenetic variants underwent positive selection both within the steppe population and later in Europe, probably driven by pathogenic challenges coinciding with changes in diet, lifestyle and population density. This study highlights the critical importance of the Neolithic period and Bronze Age as determinants of modern immune responses and their subsequent effect on the risk of developing MS in a changing environment. Analysis of a large ancient genome dataset shows that genetic risk for multiple sclerosis rose in steppe pastoralists, providing insight into how genetic ancestry from the Neolithic and Bronze Age has shaped modern immune responses.
|
|
