Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial—Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists.

Methods

The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

     

Goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A randomised,blinded trial (GODIF trial—First version)

Background

Salt and water accumulation leading to fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but diuretics' effects on patient outcomes are uncertain. In this first version of the GODIF trial, we aimed to assess the effects of goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in clinically stable, adult ICU patients with at least 5% fluid overload. Participants were randomised to furosemide versus placebo infusion aiming at achieving neutral cumulative fluid balance as soon as possible. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days.

Results

The trial was terminated after the enrolment of 41 of 1000 participants because clinicians had difficulties using cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status (32% of participants had their initially registered cumulative fluid balance adjusted and 29% experienced one or more protocol violations). The baseline cumulative fluid balance was 6956 ml in the furosemide group and 6036 ml in the placebo group; on day three, the cumulative fluid balances were 1927 ml and 5139 ml. The median number of days alive and out of hospital at day 90 was 50 days in the furosemide group versus 45 days in the placebo group (mean difference 1 day, 95% CI -19 to 21, p-value .94).

Conclusions

The use of cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status appeared too difficult to use in clinical practice. We were unable to provide precise estimates for any outcomes as only 4.1% of the planned sample size was randomised.     

Evaluation of a special concept of physical therapy in spondyloarthritis: German multimodal rheumatologic complex treatment for spondyloarthritis

Clinical Rheumatology - Multimodal rheumatologic complex treatment (MRCT) is a specific concept of German inpatient care focusing on physical therapy for patients with rheumatic diseases suffering...     

Bioimpedance as a measure of fluids in patients with septic shock. A prospective observational study

Background

Septic shock is often treated with aggressive fluid resuscitation leading to profound fluid overload. The assessment of fluid status relies on suboptimal measures making treatment difficult. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is an alternative but the validity is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis for fluid measures in patients with septic shock.

Methods

Single-center, prospective observational cohort study. We included adult ICU patients with septic shock. We evaluated the agreement between measures on the left and right side of the patient and measures 1 h apart by two bioelectrical impedance devices. Results are presented as Bland Altman plots with 95% Limits of Agreements (LoA) and as correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis results and clinical markers of fluids.

Results

Forty-nine patients were included. The agreement between measures on the left and the right side of the patient and after 1 h was overall without bias, but with wide LoA's. Fluid overload 1 h apart showed the most narrow 95% LoA (−2.4–2.9 L). The same wide limits of agreements were observed when comparing devices. For example, total body water with 95% LoA of −14.8 –16.7 L. Correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis and clinical measures were low but statistically significant.

Conclusions

In patients with septic shock bioelectrical impedance analysis had no systematic errors or bias, but wide limits of agreement, indicating that the devices have a large and uncorrectable random error. Fluid status by bioelectrical impedance analysis is not sufficiently accurate to guide treatment in this group of patients.