Early Glasgow Coma Scale Score and Prediction of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Secondary Analysis of Three Harmonized Prehospital Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The prehospital prediction of the radiographic diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in hemorrhagic shock patients has the potential to promote early therapeutic interventions. However, the identification of TBI is often challenging and prehospital tools remain limited. While the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score is frequently used to assess the extent of impaired consciousness after injury, the utility of the GCS scores in the early prehospital phase of care to predict TBI in patients with severe injury and concomitant shock is poorly understood.METHODS: We performed a post-hoc, secondary analysis utilizing data derived from three randomized prehospital clinical trials: the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma trial (PAMPER), the Study of Tranexamic Acid During Air Medical and Ground Prehospital Transport trial (STAAMP), and the Pragmatic Prehospital Type O Whole Blood Early Resuscitation (PPOWER) trial. Patients were dichotomized into two cohorts based on the presence of TBI and then further stratified into three groups based on prehospital GCS score: GCS 3, GCS 4-12, and GCS 13-15. The association between prehospital GCS score and clinical documentation of TBI was assessed.RESULTS: A total of 1,490 enrolled patients were included in this analysis. The percentage of patients with documented TBI in those with a GCS 3 was 59.5%, 42.4% in those with a GCS 4-12, and 11.8% in those with a GCS 13-15. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the prehospital GCS score for the diagnosis of TBI is low, with a GCS of 3 having only a 60% PPV. Hypotension and prehospital intubation are independent predictors of a low prehospital GCS. Decreasing prehospital GCS is strongly associated with higher incidence or mortality over time, irrespective of the diagnosis of TBI.CONCLUSIONS: The ability to accurately predict the presence of TBI in the prehospital phase of care is essential. The utility of the GCS scores in the early prehospital phase of care to predict TBI in patients with severe injury and concomitant shock is limited. The use of novel scoring systems and improved technology are needed to promote the accurate early diagnosis of TBI.

Characterization of adverse events in injured patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock: a secondary analysis of three harmonized prehospital randomized clinical trials.

Background: The reporting of adverse events (AEs) is required and well defined in the execution of clinical trials, but is poorly characterized particularly in prehospital trials focusing on traumatic injury. In the setting of prehospital traumatic injury trials, no literature currently exists analyzing the clinical implications of AEs and their associations with mortality and morbidity. We sought to analyze AEs from three prehospital hemorrhagic shock trials and characterize their time course, incidence, severity, associated clinical outcomes, and relatedness. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of three prehospital randomized clinical trials. We analyzed AEs at both the patient level as well as the individual AE level. We categorized patients who had no AEs, a single documented AE and those with multiple events (>1 AE). We characterized AE timing, severity, relatedness and attributable mortality outcomes. Results: We included 1490 patients from the three harmonized clinical trials, with 299 (20.1%) individual patients having at least a single AE documented with 529 AEs documented overall as a proportion of patients had multiple events. Over 44% of patients had a death-related misclassified AE. Patients with at least a single documented AE had a significantly higher 28-day mortality (log-rank χ2=81.27, p<0.001) compared with those without an AE documented. Patients with a single AE had a significant higher mortality than those with multiple AEs, potentially due to survival bias (log-rank χ2=11.80, p=0.006). When relatedness of each individual AE was characterized, over 97% of AEs were classified as 'definitely not related' or 'probably not related' to the intervention. Conclusions: AEs in hemorrhagic shock trials are common, occur early and are associated with mortality and survival bias. The potential for inaccurate reporting exists, and education and training remain essential for appropriate treatment arm comparison. The current results have important relevance to injury-related clinical trials. Trial registration numbers: NCT01818427, NCT02086500 and NCT03477006. Level of evidence: II.

Impact of adherence to procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline recommendations for low procalcitonin levels on antibiotic use.

BACKGROUND: The Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT) found provision of a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline to hospital-based clinicians did not reduce antibiotic use. Possible reasons include clinician reluctance to follow the guideline, with an observed 64.8% adherence rate. In this study we sought to determine the threshold adherence rate for reduction in antibiotic use, and to explore opportunities to increase adherence. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of ProACT data. ProACT randomized 1656 patients presenting to 14 U.S. hospitals with suspected lower respiratory tract infection to usual care or provision of procalcitonin assay results and an antibiotic prescribing guideline to the treating clinicians. We simulated varying adherence to guideline recommendations for low procalcitonin levels and determined which threshold adherence rate could have resulted in rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups at alpha = 0.05. We also performed sensitivity analyses within specific clinical settings and grouped patients initially prescribed antibiotics despite low procalcitonin into low, medium, and high risk of illness severity or bacterial infection. RESULTS: Our primary outcome was number of antibiotic-days by day 30 using an intention-to-treat approach and a null hypothesis of no difference in antibiotic use. We determined that an 84% adherence rate in the hospital setting (emergency department and inpatient) for low procalcitonin could have allowed rejection of the null hypothesis (3.7 vs 4.3 antibiotic-days, p = 0.048). The threshold adherence rate was 76% for continued guideline adherence after discharge. Even 100% adherence in the emergency department alone failed to reduce antibiotic-days. Of the 218 patients prescribed antibiotics in the emergency department despite low procalcitonin, 153 (70.2%) were categorized as low or medium risk. CONCLUSIONS: High adherence in the hospital setting to a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline is necessary to reduce antibiotic use in suspected lower respiratory tract infection. Continued guideline adherence after discharge and withholding of antibiotics in low and medium risk patients with low procalcitonin may offer impactful potential opportunities for antibiotic reduction. Trial registration Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT), ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02130986. First posted May 6, 2014.

Development and implementation of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute COVID-19 common data elements.

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) instigated a flurry of clinical research activity. The unprecedented pace with which trials were launched left an early void in data standardization, limiting the potential for subsequent data pooling. To facilitate data standardization across emerging studies, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) charged two groups with harmonizing data collection, and these groups collaborated to create a concise set of COVID-19 Common Data Elements (CDEs) for clinical research. Methods: Our iterative approach followed three guiding principles: 1) draw from existing multi-center COVID-19 clinical trials as precedents, 2) incorporate existing data elements and data standards whenever possible, and 3) alignment to data standards that facilitate data sharing and regulatory submission. We also supported rapid implementation of the CDEs in NHLBI-funded studies and iteratively refined the CDEs based on feedback from those study teams. Results: The NHLBI COVID-19 CDEs are publicly available and being used for current COVID-19 clinical trials. CDEs are organized into domains, and each data element is classified within a three-tiered prioritization system. The CDE manual is hosted publicly at https://nhlbi-connects.org/common_data_elements with an accompanying data dictionary and implementation guidance. Conclusions: The NHLBI COVID-19 CDEs are designed to aid data harmonization across studies to achieve the benefits of pooled analyses. We found that organizing CDE development around our three guiding principles focused our efforts and allowed us to adapt as COVID-19 knowledge advanced. As these CDEs continue to evolve, they could be generalized for use in other acute respiratory illnesses.

Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: After a single-center trial and observational studies suggesting that early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock, three multicenter trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe) showed no benefit. This meta-analysis of individual patient data from the three recent trials was designed prospectively to improve statistical power and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect of EGDT. METHODS: We harmonized entry criteria, intervention protocols, outcomes, resource-use measures, and data collection across the trials and specified all analyses before unblinding. After completion of the trials, we pooled data, excluding the protocol-based standard-therapy group from the ProCESS trial, and resolved residual differences. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1-year survival, organ support, and hospitalization costs. We tested for treatment-by-subgroup interactions for 16 patient characteristics and 6 care-delivery characteristics. RESULTS: We studied 3723 patients at 138 hospitals in seven countries. Mortality at 90 days was similar for EGDT (462 of 1852 patients [24.9%]) and usual care (475 of 1871 patients [25.4%]); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14; P=0.68). EGDT was associated with greater mean (±SD) use of intensive care (5.3±7.1 vs. 4.9±7.0 days, P=0.04) and cardiovascular support (1.9±3.7 vs. 1.6±2.9 days, P=0.01) than was usual care; other outcomes did not differ significantly, although average costs were higher with EGDT. Subgroup analyses showed no benefit from EGDT for patients with worse shock (higher serum lactate level, combined hypotension and hyperlactatemia, or higher predicted risk of death) or for hospitals with a lower propensity to use vasopressors or fluids during usual resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and others; PRISM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030158 .).