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.

Objective. Data on the magnitude of benefit of modern therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in connective tissue disease (CTD)-associated PAH are limited. In this study, we performed meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and registries to quantify the benefit of these modern therapies in patients with CTD-PAH.Methods. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles reporting data from RCTs or registries published between January 1, 2000 and November 25, 2019. Eligibility criteria included multicenter studies with ≥30 CTD-PAH patients. For an RCT to be included, the trial had to evaluate an approved PAH therapy, and long-term risks of clinical morbidity and mortality or 6-minute walk distance had to be reported. For a registry to be included, survival rates had to be reported. Random-effects models were used to pool the data.Results. Eleven RCTs (total of 4,329 patients; 1,267 with CTD-PAH) and 19 registries (total of 9,739 patients; 4,008 with CTD-PAH) were included. Investigational therapy resulted in a 36% reduction in the risk of clinical morbidity/ mortality events both in the overall PAH population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54, 0.75; P < 0.001) and in CTD-PAH patients (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51, 0.81; P < 0.001) as compared to control subjects. The survival rate was lower in CTD-PAH patients compared to all PAH patients (survival rate 62%, 95% CI 57, 67% versus 72%, 95% CI 69, 75% at 3 years). The survival rate in CTD-PAH patients treated primarily after 2010 was higher than that in CTD-PAH patients treated before 2010 (survival rate 73%, 95% CI 62, 81% versus 65%, 95% CI 59, 71% at 3 years).Conclusion. Modern therapy provides a similar reduction in morbidity/mortality risk in patients with CTD-PAH when compared to the PAH population overall. Risk of death is higher in CTD-PAH patients than in those with PAH overall, but survival has improved in the last 10 years, which may be related to increased screening and/ or new treatment approaches. Early detection of PAH in patients with CTD and up-front intensive treatment are warranted.

Purpose:We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. Methods:We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. Results:We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference − 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) − 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI − 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (− 3 to 10; P = 0.22).

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Different management strategies exist, but the evidence is limited and derived from non‐ICU patients. This international survey of ICU doctors evaluated the preferred management of acute AF in ICU patients. Method We conducted an international online survey of ICU doctors with 27 questions about the preferred management of acute AF in the ICU, including antiarrhythmic therapy in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients and use of anticoagulant therapy. Results A total of 910 respondents from 70 ICUs in 14 countries participated in the survey with 24%–100% of doctors from sites responding. Most ICUs (80%) did not have a local guideline for the management of acute AF. The preferred first‐line strategy for the management of hemodynamically stable patients with acute AF was observation (95% of respondents), rhythm control (3%), or rate control (2%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, the preferred strategy was observation (48%), rhythm control (48%), or rate control (4%). Overall, preferred antiarrhythmic interventions included amiodarone, direct current cardioversion, beta‐blockers other than sotalol, and magnesium in that order. A total of 67% preferred using anticoagulant therapy in ICU patients with AF, among whom 61% preferred therapeutic dose anticoagulants and 39% prophylactic dose anticoagulants. Conclusion This international survey indicated considerable practice variation among ICU doctors in the clinical management of acute AF, including the overall management strategies and the use of antiarrhythmic interventions and anticoagulants.