Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan.

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.

Factors associated with non-response at health-related quality of life follow-up in a septic shock trial.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of intensive care unit (ICU) patients often includes health-related quality of life (HRQoL) surveying, but non-responders hamper the interpretation. Our aim was to assess factors for non-response to HRQoL survey in ICU patients with septic shock at follow-up in a clinical trial. METHODS: In a post hoc follow-up registry study, we assessed all the Danish survivors in the Transfusion-Requirements in Septic Shock trial patients, who were mailed the Short Form 36-item Survey (SF-36) 1-year after randomization. We used covariates from the trial database merged with covariates from nation-wide registries using the unique national identification number to explore possible factors for not responding. Five covariates were pre-specified to be included in the primary multivariate analysis: age, number of days in hospital from randomization to follow-up, level of education, cohabitation and employment status at follow-up. We compared the mortality from 1-year survival (2012-2014) till end of final follow-up (January 2016) between non-responders and responders. RESULTS: We assessed 308 survivors of whom 108 (35%) were non-responders. In the primary analysis lower age (odds ratio 1.03, 95% CI [1.01-1.05]), more admission days in hospital (1.006 [1.001-1.011]) and living alone (4.33 [2.46-7.63]) were associated with non-responding, whereas the level of education and employment status were not. Non-responders had a hazard ratio of 1.63 [0.97-2.72] for mortality from 1-year follow-up to final follow-up as compared to the responders. CONCLUSION: Being younger, spending more days in hospital and living alone were all associated with non-response at 1-year HRQoL follow-up among ICU patients with septic shock.