Sex and gender-based analysis and diversity metric reporting in acute care trials published in high-impact journals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials. RESULTS: We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022282565.

Methaemalbumin: a diagnostic surrogate for methaemoglobinaemia and treatment with red cell exchange in a patient with thalassaemia.

A man in his 30s with alpha thalassaemia (four-alpha globin gene deletion) presented with 1 week of shortness of breath and 1 month of general malaise. Pulse oximetry monitoring revealed low peripheral oxygen saturation of approximately 80% despite maximal high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (fractional inspired oxygen 1.0-60 L/min flow). Arterial blood gas samples were chocolate brown in colour, with a low arterial partial pressure of oxygen of 197 mm Hg. This large oxygen saturation gap raised suspicion for methaemoglobinaemia. However, the patient's co-oximetry results were suppressed by the blood gas analyser and delayed a definitive diagnosis. A methaemalbumin screen was sent instead, which was positive at 65 mg/L (reference interval: <3 mg/L). Treatment with methylene blue was initiated but did not result in complete resolution of cyanosis. This patient had been red cell exchange dependent since childhood for thalassaemia. Therefore, an urgent red cell exchange was initiated overnight, leading to an improvement in symptoms and interpretability of co-oximetry results. This resulted in rapid improvement without residual sequelae or complications. We conclude that a methaemalbumin screen can be used as a surrogate test for prompt confirmation of diagnosis in lieu of co-oximetry in cases of severe methaemoglobinaemia or in cases with underlying haemoglobinopathy. Red cell exchange can allow prompt methaemoglobinaemia reversal, especially if methylene blue is only partially effective.

Health-related quality-of-life and health-utility reporting in critical care.

Mortality is a well-established patient-important outcome in critical care studies. In contrast, morbidity is less uniformly reported (given the myriad of critical care illnesses and complications of each) but may have a common end-impact on a patient's functional capacity and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Survival with a poor quality-of-life may not be acceptable depending on individual patient values and preferences. Hence, as mortality decreases within critical care, it becomes increasingly important to measure intensive care unit (ICU) survivor HRQoL. HRQoL measurements with a preference-based scoring algorithm can be converted into health utilities on a scale anchored at 0 (representing death) and 1 (representing full health). They can be combined with survival to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which are one of the most widely used methods of combining morbidity and mortality into a composite outcome. Although QALYs have been use for health-technology assessment decision-making, an emerging and novel role would be to inform clinical decision-making for patients, families and healthcare providers about what expected HRQoL may be during and after ICU care. Critical care randomized control trials (RCTs) have not routinely measured or reported HRQoL (until more recently), likely due to incapacity of some patients to participate in patient-reported outcome measures. Further differences in HRQoL measurement tools can lead to non-comparable values. To this end, we propose the validation of a gold-standard HRQoL tool in critical care, specifically the EQ-5D-5L. Both combined health-utility and mortality (disaggregated) and QALYs (aggregated) can be reported, with disaggregation allowing for determination of which components are the main drivers of the QALY outcome. Increased use of HRQoL, health-utility, and QALYs in critical care RCTs has the potential to: (1) Increase the likelihood of finding important effects if they exist; (2) improve research efficiency; and (3) help inform optimal management of critically ill patients allowing for decision-making about their HRQoL, in additional to traditional health-technology assessments.

Non-COVID outcomes associated with the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, healthcare providers struggle to manage both COVID-19 and non-COVID patients while still providing high-quality care. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with non-COVID illness and on healthcare systems compared to non-pandemic epochs. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/CENTRAL/CINAHL (inception to December 31, 2020). All study types with COVID-pandemic time period (after December 31, 2019) with comparative non-pandemic time periods (prior to December 31, 2019). Data regarding study characteristics/case-mix/interventions/comparators/ outcomes (primary: mortality; secondary: morbidity/hospitalizations/disruptions-to-care. Paired reviewers conducted screening and abstraction, with conflicts resolved by discussion. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence rating using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 11,581 citations, 167 studies met eligibility. Our meta-analysis showed an increased mortality of 16% during the COVID pandemic for non-COVID illness compared with 11% mortality during the pre-pandemic period (RR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.28-1.50; absolute risk difference: 5% [95% CI: 4-6%], p<0.00001, very low certainty evidence). Twenty-eight studies (17%) reported significant changes in morbidity (where 93% reported increases), while 30 studies (18%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Thirty-nine studies (23%) reported significant changes in hospitalizations (97% reporting decreases), while 111 studies (66%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Sixty-two studies (37%) reported significant disruptions in standards-to-care (73% reporting increases), while 62 studies (37%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in mortality during the COVID pandemic compared to pre-pandemic times for non-COVID illnesses. When significant changes were reported, there was increased morbidity, decreased hospitalizations and increased disruptions in standards-of-care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020201256 (Sept 2, 2020).

Economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Prior randomised trials suggest that probiotics may prevent infections such as VAP and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD). PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) is a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG with usual care versus usual care without probiotics in preventing VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The objective of E-PROSPECT is to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of L. rhamnosus GG plus usual care versus usual care without probiotics in critically ill patients. E-PROSPECT will be performed from the public healthcare payer's perspective over a time horizon from ICU admission to hospital discharge.We will determine probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all patients alongside PROSPECT. We will retrieve unit costs for each resource use item using jurisdiction-specific public databases, supplemented by individual site unit costs if such databases are unavailable. Direct costs will include medications, personnel costs, radiology/laboratory testing, operative/non-operative procedures and per-day hospital 'hoteling' costs not otherwise encompassed. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per VAP prevented between the two treatment groups. Other clinical events such as CDAD, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and in-hospital mortality will be included as secondary outcomes. We will perform pre-specified subgroup analyses (medical/surgical/trauma; age; frailty status; antibiotic use; prevalent vs no prevalent pneumonia) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for VAP, then generate confidence intervals using the non-parametric bootstrapping approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approval for E-PROSPECT was granted by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board of McMaster University on 29 July 2019. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or substitute decision-maker in PROSPECT. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01782755; Pre-results.

Clinical Predictors for Unsafe Direct Discharge Home Patients From Intensive Care Units.

PURPOSE: To describe factors (demographics and clinical characteristics) that predict patients who are at an increased risk of adverse events or unplanned return visits to a health-care facility following discharge direct to home (DDH) from intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Prospective cohort study of all adult patients who survived their stay in our medical-surgical-trauma ICU between February 2016 and 2017 and were discharged directly home. Patients were followed for 8 weeks postdischarge. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with adverse events or unplanned return visits to a health-care facility following DDH from ICU. RESULTS: A total of 129 DDH patients were enrolled and completed the 8-week follow-up. We identified 39 unplanned return visits (URVs). There was 0% mortality at 8 weeks postdischarge. Eight potential predictors of hospital URVs (P < .2) were identified in the univariable analysis: prior substance abuse (odds ratio [OR] of URV of 2.50 [95% confidence interval: 1.08-5.80], hepatitis (OR: 6.92 [1.68-28.48]), sepsis (OR: 11.03 [1.19-102.29]), admission nine equivalents of nursing manpower score (NEMS) <24 (OR: 2.28 [1.03-5.04], no fixed address (OR: 22.9 [1.2-437.3]), ICU length of stay (LOS) <2 days (OR: 2.95 [1.28-6.78]), home discharge within London, Ontario (OR: 2.44 [1.00-5.92]), and left against medical advice (AMA; OR: 6.06 [2.04-17.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified 8 covariates that were potential predictors of URV: prior substance abuse, hepatitis, sepsis, admission NEMS <24, no fixed address, ICU LOS <2 days, home discharge within London, Ontario, and left AMA. The practice of direct discharges home from the ICU would benefit from adequately powered multicenter study in order to construct a clinical prediction model (that would require further testing and validation).

Point-of-care transcranial Doppler by intensivists.

In the unconscious patient, there is a diagnostic void between the neurologic physical exam, and more invasive, costly and potentially harmful investigations. Transcranial color-coded sonography and two-dimensional transcranial Doppler imaging of the brain have the potential to be a middle ground to bridge this gap for certain diagnoses. With the increasing availability of point-of-care ultrasound devices, coupled with the need for rapid diagnosis of deteriorating neurologic patients, intensivists may be trained to perform point-of-care transcranial Doppler at the bedside. The feasibility and value of this technique in the intensive care unit to help rule-in specific intra-cranial pathologies will form the focus of this article. The proposed scope for point-of-care transcranial Doppler for the intensivist will be put forth and illustrated using four representative cases: presence of midline shift, vasospasm, raised intra-cranial pressure, and progression of cerebral circulatory arrest. We will review the technical details, including methods of image acquisition and interpretation. Common pitfalls and limitations of point-of-care transcranial Doppler will also be reviewed, as they must be understood for accurate diagnoses during interpretation, as well as the drawbacks and inadequacies of the modality in general.