Abstracts of RCTs addressing pain are not often dependable information sources; half of them are not published, their reporting quality is suboptimal. When published, 30% of abstracts-full text pairs have discordant results, with 78% discordance when abstracts present preliminary results.

The effect of routine inhalation therapy on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has not been well-defined. This randomized controlled trial included 175 eligible adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with mechanical ventilation at the University Hospital of Split between October 2020 and June 2021. Patients were randomized and allocated to a control group (no routine inhalation) or one of the treatment arms (inhalation of N-acetylcysteine; 5% saline solution; or 8.4% sodium bicarbonate). The primary outcome was the incidence of VAP, while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality. Routine inhalation therapy had no effect on the incidence of bacterial or fungal VAP nor on all-cause mortality (p > 0.05). Secondary analyses revealed a significant reduction of Gram-positive and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) VAP in the treatment groups. Specifically, the bicarbonate group had a statistically significantly lower incidence of Gram-positive bacterial VAP (4.8%), followed by the N-acetylcysteine group (10.3%), 5% saline group (19.0%), and control group (34.6%; p = 0.001). This difference was driven by a lower incidence of MRSA VAP in the bicarbonate group (2.4%), followed by the N-acetylcysteine group (7.7%), 5% saline group (14.3%), and control group (34.6%; p < 0.001). Longer duration of ventilator therapy was the only significant, independent predictor of any bacterial or fungal VAP in the multivariate analysis (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.29, p = 0.038 and aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01–1.10, p = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, inhalation therapy had no effect on the overall VAP incidence or all-cause mortality. Further studies should explore the secondary findings of this study such as the reduction of Gram-positive or MRSA-caused VAP in treated patients.

COVID-19 symptoms vary from asymptomatic cases to moderate and severe illness with patients needing hospitalization and intensive care treatment. Vitamin D is associated with severity of viral infections and has an immune-modulatory effect in immune response. Observational studies showed a negative association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity and mortality outcomes. In this study, we aimed to determine whether daily supplementation of vitamin D during intensive care unit (ICU) stay in COVID-19 patients with severe illness affects clinically relevant outcomes. Patients with COVID-19 disease in need of respiratory support admitted to the ICU were eligible for inclusion. Patients with low vitamin D levels were randomized into one of two groups: the intervention group received daily supplementation of vitamin D and the control group did not receive vitamin D supplementation. In total, 155 patients were randomized: 78 into the intervention group and 77 into the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in number of days spent on respiratory support, although the trial was underpowered for the main outcome. There was no difference in any of the secondary outcomes analyzed between two groups. Our study suggests no benefit in vitamin D supplementation to patients with severe COVID-19 disease admitted to the ICU and in need of respiratory support in any of the analyzed outcomes

The main goal of intensive care medicine is helping patients survive acute threats to their lives, while preserving and restoring life quality. Because of medical advancements, it is now possible to sustain life to an extent that would previously have been difficult to imagine. However, the goals of medicine are not to preserve organ function or physiological activity but to treat and improve the health of a person as a whole. When dealing with medical futilities, physicians and other members of the care team should be aware of some ethical principles. Knowing these principles could make decision-making easier, especially in cases where legal guidelines are insufficient or lacking. Understanding of these principles can relieve the pressure that healthcare professionals feel when they have to deal with medical futility. Efforts should be made to promote an ethics of care, which means caring for patients even after further invasive treatment has been deemed to be futile. Treatments that improve patients' comfort and minimize suffering of both patients and their families are equally as important as those aimed at saving patients' lives.

No abstract