Statistical Analysis Plan for the INTEnsive Care Bundle with Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

The third INTEnsive care bundle with blood pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT3) is an international, multicenter, stepped-wedge (4 phases/3 steps) cluster randomized trial involving 110 hospitals in mainly low- and middle-income countries during 2017-2022. The aim is to determine the effectiveness of a goal-directed care bundle of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering, glycemic control, antipyrexia, and anticoagulation reversal treatment versus usual standard of care, in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). After a "usual care" period, hospitals were randomly allocated to implementing care-bundle protocols for control targets (systolic BP <140 mm Hg; glucose 6.1-7.8/7.8-10.0 mmol/L according to diabetes mellitus status; temperature ≤37.5°C; normalization of anticoagulation). A sample size of 8,360 patients (mean 19 per phase per site) provides 90% power (α = 0.05) for a 5.6% absolute improvement in the primary outcome of scores on the modified Rankin scale at 6 months, analyzed by ordinal logistic regression. A detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) was developed to prespecify the method of analysis for all outcomes and key variables collected in the trial. The primary analysis will use ordinal logistic regression adjusted for the stepped-wedge design. The SAP also includes planned sensitivity analyses, including covariate adjustments, missing data imputations, and subgroup analysis. This SAP allows transparent, verifiable, and prespecified analyses in consideration of the challenges in conducting the study during the COVID pandemic. It also avoids analysis bias arising from prior knowledge of the findings in determining the benefits and harms of a care bundle in acute ICH.

Balanced Multielectrolyte Solution versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Whether the use of balanced multielectrolyte solution (BMES) in preference to 0.9% sodium chloride solution (saline) in critically ill patients reduces the risk of acute kidney injury or death is uncertain. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned critically ill patients to receive BMES (Plasma-Lyte 148) or saline as fluid therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) for 90 days. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were receipt of new renal-replacement therapy and the maximum increase in the creatinine level during ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 5037 patients were recruited from 53 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand - 2515 patients were assigned to the BMES group and 2522 to the saline group. Death within 90 days after randomization occurred in 530 of 2433 patients (21.8%) in the BMES group and in 530 of 2413 patients (22.0%) in the saline group, for a difference of -0.15 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.60 to 3.30; P = 0.90). New renal-replacement therapy was initiated in 306 of 2403 patients (12.7%) in the BMES group and in 310 of 2394 patients (12.9%) in the saline group, for a difference of -0.20 percentage points (95% CI, -2.96 to 2.56). The mean (±SD) maximum increase in serum creatinine level was 0.41±1.06 mg per deciliter (36.6±94.0 µmol per liter) in the BMES group and 0.41±1.02 mg per deciliter (36.1±90.0 µmol per liter) in the saline group, for a difference of 0.01 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.06) (0.5 µmol per liter [95% CI, -4.7 to 5.7]). The number of adverse and serious adverse events did not differ meaningfully between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the risk of death or acute kidney injury among critically ill adults in the ICU was lower with the use of BMES than with saline. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; PLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02721654.).

Effects of a Lifestyle Intervention to Prevent Deterioration in Glycemic Status Among South Asian Women With Recent Gestational Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Women with recent gestational diabetes (GDM) have increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Objective: To investigate whether a resource-appropriate and context-appropriate lifestyle intervention could prevent glycemic deterioration among women with recent GDM in South Asia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, participant-unblinded controlled trial investigated a 12-month lifestyle intervention vs usual care at 19 urban hospitals in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Participants included women with recent diagnosis of GDM who did not have type 2 diabetes at an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3 to 18 months postpartum. They were enrolled from November 2017 to January 2020, and follow-up ended in January 2021. Data were analyzed from April to July 2021. Interventions: A 12-month lifestyle intervention focused on diet and physical activity involving group and individual sessions, as well as remote engagement, adapted to local context and resources. This was compared with usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was worsening category of glycemia based on OGTT using American Diabetes Association criteria: (1) normal glucose tolerance to prediabetes (ie, impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance) or type 2 diabetes or (2) prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. The primary analysis consisted of a survival analysis of time to change in glycemic status at or prior to the final patient visit, which occurred at varying times after 12 months for each patient. Secondary outcomes included new-onset type 2 diabetes and change in body weight. Results: A total of 1823 women (baseline mean [SD] age, 30.9 [4.9] years and mean [SD] body mass index, 26.6 [4.6]) underwent OGTT at a median (IQR) 6.5 (4.8-8.2) months postpartum. After excluding 160 women (8.8%) with type 2 diabetes, 2 women (0.1%) who met other exclusion criteria, and 49 women (2.7%) who did not consent or were uncontactable, 1612 women were randomized. Subsequently, 11 randomized participants were identified as ineligible and excluded from the primary analysis, leaving 1601 women randomized (800 women randomized to the intervention group and 801 women randomized to usual care). These included 600 women (37.5%) with prediabetes and 1001 women (62.5%) with normoglycemia. Among participants randomized to the intervention, 644 women (80.5%) received all program content, although COVID-19 lockdowns impacted the delivery model (ie, among 644 participants who engaged in all group sessions, 476 women [73.9%] received some or all content through individual engagement, and 315 women [48.9%] received some or all content remotely). After a median (IQR) 14.1 (11.4-20.1) months of follow-up, 1308 participants (81.2%) had primary outcome data. The intervention, compared with usual care, did not reduce worsening glycemic status (204 women [25.5%] vs 217 women [27.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.92; [95% CI, 0.76-1.12]; P = .42) or improve any secondary outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that a large proportion of women in South Asian urban settings developed dysglycemia soon after a GDM-affected pregnancy and that a lifestyle intervention, modified owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not prevent subsequent glycemic deterioration. These findings suggest that alternate or additional approaches are needed, especially among high-risk individuals. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India Identifier: CTRI/2017/06/008744; Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: SLCTR/2017/001; and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03305939.