It is unclear whether vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine are more effective than hydrocortisone alone in expediting resolution of septic shock.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the combination of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with hydrocortisone alone, improves the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted in 10 intensive care units in Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil that recruited 216 patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock. The first patient was enrolled on May 8, 2018, and the last on July 9, 2019. The final date of follow-up was October 6, 2019.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to the intervention group (n = 109), consisting of intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g every 6 hours), hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours), and thiamine (200 mg every 12 hours), or to the control group (n = 107), consisting of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours) alone until shock resolution or up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary trial outcome was duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration up to day 7. Ten secondary outcomes were prespecified, including 90-day mortality.RESULTS Among 216 patients who were randomized, 211 provided consent and completed the primary outcome measurement (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 15.0]; 133 men [63%]). Time alive and vasopressor free up to day 7 was 122.1 hours (interquartile range [IQR], in the intervention group and 124.6 hours (IQR, 82.1-147.0 hours) in the control group; the median of all paired differences was -0.6 hours (95% CI, -8.3 to 7.2 hours; P = .83). Of 10 prespecified secondary outcomes, 9 showed no statistically significant difference. Ninety-day mortality was 30/105 (28.6%) in the intervention group and 25/102 (24.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69-2.00). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn patients with septic shock, treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone, did not significantly improve the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration over 7 days. The finding suggests that treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine does not lead to a more rapid resolution of septic shock compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone.

The COVID STEROID 2 Trial Group 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 MEASURESThe 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 Ն1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). RESULTSOf 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.

No abstract

Background: Septic shock is associated with decreased vasopressor responsiveness. Experimental data suggest that central alpha2-agonists like dexmedetomidine (DEX) increase vasopressor responsiveness and reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock. However, DEX may also cause hypotension and bradycardia. Thus, it remains unclear whether DEX is hemodynamically safe or helpful in this setting. Methods: In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE III) trial, an international randomized trial comparing early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual care in critically patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we studied patients with septic shock admitted to two tertiary ICUs in Australia and Switzerland. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h after randomization, expressed as noradrenaline equivalent dose (NEq [μg/kg/min] = noradrenaline + adrenaline + vasopressin/0.4). Results: Between November 2013 and February 2018, 417 patients were recruited into the SPICE III trial at both sites. Eighty-three patients with septic shock were included in this subgroup analysis. Of these, 44 (53%) received DEX and 39 (47%) usual care. Vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h were similar between the two groups. Median NEq dose was 0.03 [0.01, 0.07] μg/kg/min in the DEX group and 0.04 [0.01, 0.16] μg/kg/min in the usual care group (p = 0.17). However, patients in the DEX group had a lower NEq/MAP ratio, indicating lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Moreover, on adjusted multivariable analysis, higher dexmedetomidine dose was associated with a lower NEq/MAP ratio.

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.

Purpose: We set out to assess the resuscitation fluid requirements and physiological and clinical responses of intensive care unit (ICU) patients resuscitated with 20% albumin versus 4-5% albumin. Methods:We performed a randomised controlled trial in 321 adult patients requiring fluid resuscitation within 48 h of admission to three ICUs in Australia and the UK. Results:The cumulative volume of resuscitation fluid at 48 h (primary outcome) was lower in the 20% albumin group than in the 4-5% albumin group [median difference − 600 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 800 to − 400; P < 0.001]. The 20% albumin group had lower cumulative fluid balance at 48 h (mean difference − 576 ml, 95% CI − 1033 to − 119; P = 0.01). Peak albumin levels were higher but sodium and chloride levels lower in the 20% albumin group. Median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 12.0 h (7.6, 33.1) in the 20% albumin group and 15.3 h (7.7, 58.1) in the 4-5% albumin group (P = 0.13); the proportion of patients commenced on renal replacement therapy after randomization was 3.3% and 4.2% (P = 0.67), respectively, and the proportion discharged alive from ICU was 97.4% and 91.1% (P = 0.02). Conclusions:Resuscitation with 20% albumin decreased resuscitation fluid requirements, minimized positive early fluid balance and was not associated with any evidence of harm compared with 4-5% albumin. These findings support the safety of further exploration of resuscitation with 20% albumin in larger randomised trials.

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/day) versus 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 1,000 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 versus placebo group were 7 versus 10 (adjusted mean difference: ‐1.1 days, 95% CI ‐9.5 to 7.3, p = 0.79); mortality was 6/16 versus 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 versus 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.

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.