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.

     

Off pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) in critical left mainstem stenosis—Our experience

Background Beating heart surgery has now become the commonest technique of doing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG) in our country. It is being used even in such high risk situations like diffuse coronary disease and Critical Left Main stem Stenosis (LMCS) with good results. The aim of this study is to retrospectively review our results in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (OPCAB) in patients with critical left main stem stenosis. Methods This study is a retrospective analysis of the data of patients who underwent primary coronary artery bypass surgery. During the period from April 2003 to September 2005 a total of 64 patients underwent OPCAB procedure for critical LMCS. During the same period 10 patients underwent CABG on Cardio Pulmonary Bypass (CPB). The age range was 36–77yrs. The sex distribution was M: F 53∶10. Ten patients were done as emergency. 2 of them were on Intra Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) support preoperatively. 10 patients were high risk with a Euro score of ≥5. Results Left Internal Mammary Artery (LIMA) was used in 78% of cases. Average grafts per patient was 2.96. The median ventilation time was 5.91 hrs. New IABP insertion in postoperative period was required in 1 patient. One patient was reexplored for bleeding. There was one perioperative myocardial infarction. 57% of patients did not need any blood transfusion. There was no conversion to CPB. There was no operative mortality. Inotropes were used in ten cases. Conclusions OPCAB is a safe method of revascularization in patients with critical LMCS. Preoperative IABP is useful in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, there is a place for CPB in patients needing additional procedures like Mitral Valve repair (MV repair) or Dor's procedure or when the vessels are very diffusely diseased. Those patients who are unstable despite IABP support may be managed by Beating heart On Pump (BHOP) technique.     

氟西汀与阿米替林治疗105例抑郁障碍病人的双盲对照试验

目的：评价国产氟西汀的抗抑郁作用及安全性。方法：采用随机、双盲对照、多中心研究，分为国产氟西汀组５７例（男性２２例，女性３５例；年龄４０±ｓ１３ａ），口服氟西汀２０ｍｇ，ｑｄ，阿米替林５７例（男性２７例，女性３０例；年龄４０±１４ａ），口服阿米替林７５ｍｇ，ｂｉｄ，疗程６ｗｋ。结果：氟西汀治疗抑郁障碍的疗效与阿米替林相当，总有效率分别为８５％及９２％（Ｐ＞０．０５）；氟西汀组的主要副作用有口干、便秘、恶心、心动过速等，但较之阿米替林程度轻且发生率低。结论：氟西汀的抗抑郁作用与阿米替林相当，副作用少，服用方便。     

Metoprolol. An updated review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy, in hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and related cardiovascular disorders

During the intervening years since metoprolol was first reviewed in the Journal (1977), it has become widely used in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and angina pectoris. Although much data have accumulated, its precise mechanisms of action in these diseases remain largely uncertain. Optimum treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris with metoprolol is achieved through dose titration within the therapeutic range. It has been clearly demonstrated that metoprolol is at least as effective as other beta-blockers, diuretics and certain calcium antagonists in the majority of patients. Although a twice daily dosage regimen is normally used, satisfactory control can be maintained in many patients with single daily doses of conventional or, more frequently, slow release formulations. Addition of a diuretic may improve the overall response rate in hypertension. Several controlled trials have studied the effects of metoprolol administered during the acute phase and after myocardial infarction. In early intervention trials a reduction in total mortality was achieved in one moderately large trial of prolonged treatment, but in another, which excluded patients already being treated with beta-blockers or certain calcium antagonists and where treatment was only short term, mortality was significantly reduced only in 'high risk' patients. Overall results with metoprolol have not demonstrated that early intervention treatment in all patients produces clinically important improvement in short term mortality. Thus, the use of metoprolol during the early stages of myocardial infarction is controversial, largely because of the requirement to treat all patients to save a small number at 'high risk'. This blanket coverage approach to treatment may be more justified during the post-infarction follow-up phase since it has been shown that metoprolol slightly, but significantly, reduces the mortality rate for periods of up to 3 years. Metoprolol is generally well tolerated and its beta 1-selectivity may facilitate its administration to certain patients (e.g. asthmatics and diabetics) in whom non-selective beta-blockers are contraindicated. Temporary fatigue, dizziness and headache are among the most frequently reported side effects. After a decade of use, metoprolol is well established as a first choice drug in mild to moderate hypertension and stable angina, and is beneficial in post-infarction patients. Further study is needed in less well established areas of treatment such as cardiac arrhythmias, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and hypertensive cardiomegaly.     

Challenges in accessing multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities in Canada

PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to examine the services offered by multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTFs) across Canada and to compare access to care at these MPTFs. METHODS: A MPTF was defined as a clinic that advertised specialized multidisciplinary services for the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic pain, having a minimum of three different health care disciplines (including at least one medical speciality) available and integrated within the facility. The search method included approaching all hospital and rehabilitation centre administrators in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or similar body in each province. Designated investigators were responsible for confirming and supplementing MPTFs from the preliminary list for each province. Administrative leads at each eligible MPTF were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding their MPTF infrastructure, clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities. RESULTS: Completed survey forms were received from 102 MPTFs (response rate 85%) with 80% concentrated in major cities, and none in Prince Edward Island and the Territories. The MPTFs offer a wide variety of treatments including non-pharmacological modalities such as interventional, physical and psychological therapy. The median wait time for a first appointment in public MPTFs is six months, which is approximately 12 times longer than non-public MPTFs. Eighteen pain fellowship programs exist in Canadian MPTFs and 64% engage in some form of research activities CONCLUSION: Canadian MPTFs are unable to meet clinical demands of patients suffering from chronic pain, both in terms of regional accessibility and reasonable wait time for patients' first appointment.