Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: the COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
University of Copenhagen1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, Aalborg University3, Aarhus University Hospital4, Odense University Hospital5, Karolinska Institutet6, University of Bern7, University of New South Wales8, Manipal University9, Imperial College London10, The George Institute for Global Health11, Homi Bhabha National Institute12, Aarhus University13, University of Southern Denmark14
17 Jun 2021-Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)-Vol. 65, Iss: 10, pp 1421-1430
TL;DR: The COVID STEROID trial as discussed by the authors evaluated the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.
Abstract: Background In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. Methods In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. Results The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. Conclusions In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.
Citations
More filters
Copenhagen University Hospital1, Homi Bhabha National Institute2, Apollo Hospitals3, Karolinska Institutet4, Aalborg University5, University of Bern6, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences7, Odense University Hospital8, Linköping University9, Bombay Hospital, Indore10, Apollo Hospital, Indraprastha11, Frederiksberg Hospital12, Sir H.N. Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre13, The George Institute for Global Health14, Royal North Shore Hospital15, Academy of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom16, University of Southern Denmark17, University of Copenhagen18
TL;DR: In this article, the effects of 12 mg vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia were evaluated in a randomized clinical trial at 26 hospitals in Europe and India.
Abstract: 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. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.
119 citations
University of Bologna1, Başkent University2, University of Belgrade3, Koç University4, Medical University of Graz5, Ciba Specialty Chemicals6, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland7, University of Verona8, Semmelweis University9, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens10, Radboud University Nijmegen11, University of Seville12
TL;DR: The ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMIDs Executive Committee in 2019 and a small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call as discussed by the authors.
74 citations
TL;DR: The ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMIDS Executive Committee as mentioned in this paper , and a small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call.
74 citations
Copenhagen University Hospital1, Homi Bhabha National Institute2, Apollo Hospitals3, The George Institute for Global Health4, Karolinska Institutet5, University of Bern6, University of Copenhagen7, University of New South Wales8, Royal North Shore Hospital9, Manipal University10, Imperial College London11, Aalborg University12, University of Southern Denmark13, Odense University Hospital14, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences15, Apollo Hospital, Indraprastha16, Bombay Hospital, Indore17, Linköping University18, Bispebjerg Hospital19
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6mg 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.
Abstract: 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. 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. 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. 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.
51 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide an overview of the history of RCT and discuss the major challenges and limitations of current critical care RCTs, including overly optimistic effect sizes; unnuanced conclusions based on dichotomization of results; limited focus on patient-centred outcomes other than mortality; lack of flexibility and ability to adapt, increasing the risk of inconclusive results and limiting knowledge gains before trial completion; and inefficiency due to lack of re-use of trial infrastructure.
Abstract: Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for providing unbiased evidence of intervention effects. Here, we provide an overview of the history of RCTs and discuss the major challenges and limitations of current critical care RCTs, including overly optimistic effect sizes; unnuanced conclusions based on dichotomization of results; limited focus on patient-centred outcomes other than mortality; lack of flexibility and ability to adapt, increasing the risk of inconclusive results and limiting knowledge gains before trial completion; and inefficiency due to lack of re-use of trial infrastructure. We discuss recent developments in critical care RCTs and novel methods that may provide solutions to some of these challenges, including a research programme approach (consecutive, complementary studies of multiple types rather than individual, independent studies), and novel design and analysis methods. These include standardization of trial protocols; alternative outcome choices and use of core outcome sets; increased acceptance of uncertainty, probabilistic interpretations and use of Bayesian statistics; novel approaches to assessing heterogeneity of treatment effects; adaptation and platform trials; and increased integration between clinical trials and clinical practice. We outline the advantages and discuss the potential methodological and practical disadvantages with these approaches. With this review, we aim to inform clinicians and researchers about conventional and novel RCTs, including the rationale for choosing one or the other methodological approach based on a thorough discussion of pros and cons. Importantly, the most central feature remains the randomisation, which provides unparalleled restriction of confounding compared to non-randomised designs by reducing confounding to chance.
31 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The Consort 2010 Statement as discussed by the authors has been used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials and has been updated by Schulz et al. in 2010, based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.
Abstract: The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.
11,165 citations
Leiden University1, Loyola University Chicago2, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill3, Utrecht University4, Erasmus University Rotterdam5, Moscow State University6, Texas A&M University–Texarkana7, University of Iowa8, University of Hong Kong9, Spanish National Research Council10, University of Giessen11
TL;DR: The independent zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV and SARS -CoV-2 highlights the need for studying viruses at the species level to complement research focused on individual pathogenic viruses of immediate significance.
Abstract: The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic. The Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for developing the classification of viruses and taxon nomenclature of the family Coronaviridae, has assessed the placement of the human pathogen, tentatively named 2019-nCoV, within the Coronaviridae. Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2. In order to facilitate communication, the CSG proposes to use the following naming convention for individual isolates: SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date. While the full spectrum of clinical manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans remains to be determined, the independent zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highlights the need for studying viruses at the species level to complement research focused on individual pathogenic viruses of immediate significance. This will improve our understanding of virus–host interactions in an ever-changing environment and enhance our preparedness for future outbreaks.
5,527 citations
01 Jan 2014
2,059 citations
University of Bristol1, University of British Columbia2, World Health Organization3, University of Toronto4, Carlos III Health Institute5, University of Pittsburgh6, Université Paris-Saclay7, French Institute of Health and Medical Research8, François Rabelais University9, Peking Union Medical College Hospital10, University of Oxford11, University College London12, Imperial College London13, University of Copenhagen14, Monash University15, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust16, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust17, Federal University of São Paulo18, Auckland City Hospital19, University of São Paulo20
TL;DR: A prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19 found that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with Cohen's disease who required respiratory support.
Abstract: Importance Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using theI2statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as “low” for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as “some concerns” in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82];P Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.
1,764 citations
McMaster University1, Copenhagen University Hospital2, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences3, Albert Einstein College of Medicine4, University of Toronto5, Brown University6, Rhode Island Hospital7, Utrecht University8, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences9, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital10, Peking Union Medical College Hospital11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Humanitas University13, University of Ulsan14, National Institutes of Health15, Imperial College London16, United Arab Emirates University17, Population Health Research Institute18, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust19, Emory University Hospital20, University at Buffalo21, Baylor College of Medicine22, University of Milano-Bicocca23, King Abdulaziz Medical City24, King Saud Medical City25, The George Institute for Global Health26, Royal North Shore Hospital27, University of Virginia28, University of Washington29
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign CO VID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19, and will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
Abstract: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.
We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.
1,762 citations