Dataset Information

Effect of Cyproheptadine on Ventilatory Support-free Days in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Serotonin is a mediator of pulmonary hypoxic vasoconstriction. Experimental studies have shown that serotonin-mediated pulmonary vasoconstriction can be inhibited by cyproheptadine. The aim of this study is to assess whether treatment with cyproheptadine compared to usual care increases ventilatory support-free days during the first 28 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring ventilatory support.

Materials and methods

This randomized, single-center, open-label clinical trial included patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring ventilatory support due to COVID-19. Patients allocated to the intervention group received cyproheptadine for 10 days. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days.

Results

Nineteen patients were randomized to receive cyproheptadine and 21 to the control group. The number of ventilatory support-free days during the first 28 days was not different between the two groups (15.0; 95% CI, 0.0-24.0 days in the control group vs 7.0; 95% CI, 0.0-19.0 days in the intervention group; p = 0.284).

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19 and in need of ventilatory support, the use of cyproheptadine plus usual care, compared with usual care alone, did not increase the number of ventilatory support-free days in 28 days.

How to cite this article

Boniatti MM, Nedel WL, Rihl MF, Schwarz P, Parolo E, Moretti MMS, et al. Effect of Cyproheptadine on Ventilatory Support-free Days in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(7):517-521.

SUBMITTER: Boniatti MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10369312 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Cyproheptadine on Ventilatory Support-free Days in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Boniatti Márcio Manozzo MM Nedel Wagner Luis WL Rihl Marcos Frata MF Schwarz Patricia P Parolo Edino E Moretti Miriane Melo Silveira MMS Lisboa Thiago Costa TC

Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine 20230701 7

<h4>Background</h4>Serotonin is a mediator of pulmonary hypoxic vasoconstriction. Experimental studies have shown that serotonin-mediated pulmonary vasoconstriction can be inhibited by cyproheptadine. The aim of this study is to assess whether treatment with cyproheptadine compared to usual care increases ventilatory support-free days during the first 28 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring ventilatory support.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This randomized, single-c ...[more]

PMID: 37502298

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive.ObjectiveTo determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThe ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021.InterventionsThe immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events.ResultsAmong the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Project description:ImportanceThe efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsIn an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021).InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions.ResultsThe aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).Conclusions and relevanceAmong critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Project description:ImportanceAlternatives to sedative medications, such as music, may alleviate the anxiety associated with ventilatory support.ObjectiveTo test whether listening to self-initiated patient-directed music (PDM) can reduce anxiety and sedative exposure during ventilatory support in critically ill patients.Design, setting, and patientsRandomized clinical trial that enrolled 373 patients from 12 intensive care units (ICUs) at 5 hospitals in the Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, area receiving acute mechanical ventilatory support for respiratory failure between September 2006 and March 2011. Of the patients included in the study, 86% were white, 52% were female, and the mean (SD) age was 59 (14) years. The patients had a mean (SD) Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health Evaluation III score of 63 (21.6) and a mean (SD) of 5.7 (6.4) study days.InterventionsSelf-initiated PDM (n = 126) with preferred selections tailored by a music therapist whenever desired while receiving ventilatory support, self-initiated use of noise-canceling headphones (NCH; n = 122), or usual care (n = 125).Main outcomes and measuresDaily assessments of anxiety (on 100-mm visual analog scale) and 2 aggregate measures of sedative exposure (intensity and frequency).ResultsPatients in the PDM group listened to music for a mean (SD) of 79.8 (126) (median [range], 12 [0-796]) minutes/day. Patients in the NCH group wore the noise-abating headphones for a mean (SD) of 34.0 (89.6) (median [range], 0 [0-916]) minutes/day. The mixed-models analysis showed that at any time point, patients in the PDM group had an anxiety score that was 19.5 points lower (95% CI, -32.2 to -6.8) than patients in the usual care group (P = .003). By the fifth study day, anxiety was reduced by 36.5% in PDM patients. The treatment × time interaction showed that PDM significantly reduced both measures of sedative exposure. Compared with usual care, the PDM group had reduced sedation intensity by -0.18 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.004) points/day (P = .05) and had reduced frequency by -0.21 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.05) points/day (P = .01). The PDM group had reduced sedation frequency by -0.18 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.004) points/day vs the NCH group (P = .04). By the fifth study day, the PDM patients received 2 fewer sedative doses (reduction of 38%) and had a reduction of 36% in sedation intensity.Conclusions and relevanceAmong ICU patients receiving acute ventilatory support for respiratory failure, PDM resulted in greater reduction in anxiety compared with usual care, but not compared with NCH. Concurrently, PDM resulted in greater reduction in sedation frequency compared with usual care or NCH, and greater reduction in sedation intensity compared with usual care, but not compared with NCH.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00440700.

Project description:BackgroundAdministration of sedative and opioid medications to patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support in the intensive care unit is a common clinical practice.MethodsA two-site randomized open-label clinical trial will test the efficacy of self-management of sedative therapy with dexmedetomidine compared to usual care on anxiety, delirium, and duration of ventilatory support after randomization. Secondary objectives are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on level of alertness, total aggregate sedative and opioid medication exposure, and ventilator-free days up to day 28 after study enrolment. Exploratory objectives of the study are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on 3- and 6-month post-discharge physical and functional status, psychological well-being (depression, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder), health-related quality of life, and recollections of ICU care. ICU patients (n = 190) who are alert enough to follow commands to self-manage sedative therapy are randomly assigned to self-management of sedative therapy or usual care. Patients remain in the ICU sedative medication study phase for up to 7 days as long as mechanically ventilated.DiscussionThe care of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients can change significantly over the course of a 5-year clinical trial. Changes in sedation and pain interventions, oxygenation approaches, and standards related to extubation have substantially impacted consistency in the number of eligible patients over time. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in mandated extended pauses in trial enrolment as well as alterations in recruitment methods out of concern for study personnel safety and availability of protective equipment. Patient triaging among healthcare institutions due to COVID-19 cases also has resulted in inconsistent access to the eligible study population. This has made it even more imperative for the study team to be flexible and innovative to identify and enrol all eligible participants. Patient-controlled sedation is a novel approach to the management of patient symptoms that may be able to alleviate mechanical ventilation-induced distress without serious side effects. Findings from this study will provide insight into the efficacy of this approach on short- and long-term outcomes in a subset of mechanically ventilated patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02819141. Registered on June 29, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundIn critically ill children, in-line microfilters may reduce the incidence of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), the overall complication and organ dysfunction rate. No data on the use of in-line microfilters exist in critically ill adults.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, controlled open-label study, we evaluated the influence of in-line microfilters on systemic immune activation in 504 critically ill adults with a central venous catheter in place and an expected length of stay in the intensive care unit >24 h. Patients were randomized to have in-line microfilters placed into all intravenous lines (intervention group) or usual care (control group). The primary endpoint was the number of intensive care unit days with SIRS. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of SIRS, SIRS criteria per day, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length of stay, the incidence of acute lung injury, maximum C-reactive protein, maximum white blood cell count, incidence of new candida and/or central-line-associated bloodstream infections, incidence of new thromboembolic complications, cumulative insulin requirements and presence of hyper- or hypoglycemia.ResultsThe study groups did not differ in any baseline variable. There was no difference in the number of days in the intensive care unit with SIRS between microfilter and control patients [2 (0.8-4.7) vs. 1.8 (0.7-4.4), p = 0.62]. Except for a higher incidence of SIRS in microfilter patients (99.6 vs. 96.8 %, p = 0.04), no difference between the groups was observed in any secondary outcome parameter. Results did not change when only patients with an intensive care unit length of stay of greater than 7 days were included in the analysis. The rate of adverse events was comparable between microfilter and control patients. In two patients allocated to the microfilter group, the study intervention was discontinued for technical reasons. Use of in-line microfilters was associated with additional costs.ConclusionsThe use of in-line microfilters failed to modulate systemic inflammation and clinical outcome parameters in critically ill adults.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01534390.

Project description:IntroductionMeropenem bactericidal activity depends on the time when the free drug concentrations remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration of pathogens. The goal of this study was to compare clinical and bacteriological efficacy of continuous meropenem infusion versus bolus administration in critically ill patients with severe infection, and to evaluate the safety of both dosing regimens.MethodsPatients admitted to the interdisciplinary Intensive Care Unit (ICU) who suffered from severe infections and received meropenem were randomized either in the Infusion group (n = 120) or in the Bolus group (n = 120). Patients in the Infusion group received a loading dose of 2 g of meropenem followed by a continuous infusion of 4 g of meropenem over 24 hours. Patients in the Bolus group were given 2 g of meropenem over 30 minutes every 8 hours. Clinical and microbiological outcome, safety, meropenem-related length of ICU and hospital stay, meropenem-related length of mechanical ventilation, duration of meropenem treatment, total dose of meropenem, and ICU and in-hospital mortality were assessed.ResultsClinical cure at the end of meropenem therapy was comparable between both groups (83.0% patients in the Infusion vs. 75.0% patients in the Bolus group; P = 0.180). Microbiological success rate was higher in the Infusion group as opposed to the Bolus group (90.6% vs. 78.4%; P = 0.020). Multivariate logistic regression identified continuous administration of meropenem as an independent predictor of microbiological success (OR = 2.977; 95% CI = 1.050 to 8.443; P = 0.040). Meropenem-related ICU stay was shorter in the Infusion group compared to the Bolus group (10 (7 to 14) days vs. 12 (7 to 19) days; P = 0.044) as well as shorter duration of meropenem therapy (7 (6 to 8) days vs. 8 (7 to 10) days; P = 0.035) and lower total dose of meropenem (24 (21 to 32) grams vs. 48 (42 to 60) grams; P < 0.0001). No severe adverse events related to meropenem administration in either group were observed.ConclusionsContinuous infusion of meropenem is safe and, in comparison with higher intermittent dosage, provides equal clinical outcome, generates superior bacteriological efficacy and offers encouraging alternative of antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients.

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to assess the association between intensive care unit (ICU)-free days and patient outcomes in pediatric prehospital care and to evaluate whether ICU-free days is a more sensitive outcome measure for emergency medical services research in this population.MethodsThis study used data from a previous pediatric prehospital trial. The original study enrolled patients ≤12 years of age and compared bag-valve-mask-ventilation (BVM) versus endotracheal intubation (ETI) during prehospital resuscitation. For the current study, we defined ICU-free days as 30 minus the number of days in the ICU (range, 0-30 days) and assigned 0 ICU-free days for death within 30 days. We compared ICU-free days between the original study treatment groups (BVM vs ETI) and with the original trial outcomes of survival to hospital discharge and Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC).ResultsMedian ICU-free days for the BVM group (n = 404) versus ETI group (n = 416) was not statistically different: 0 ICU-free days (interquartile range, 0-10) versus 0 (0-0), P = 0.219. Median ICU-free days were greater for BVM group in 3 subgroups: foreign body aspiration 30 (0-30) versus 0 (0-21), P = 0.028; child maltreatment 0 (0-14.2) versus 0 (0-0), P = 0.004; and respiratory arrest 25 (1-29) versus 7.5 (0-27.7), P = 0.015. In the original trial, neither survival nor PCPC demonstrated differences in all 3 subgroups-survival was greater with BVM for child maltreatment and respiratory arrest and favorable PCPC was greater with BVM for foreign body aspiration. Overall, in the current study, patients with more ICU-free days also had greater survival to hospital discharge and more favorable PCPC scores.ConclusionsThis initial study of the association between ICU-free days and patient outcomes during prehospital pediatric resuscitation appears to support the use of ICU-free days as a clinical endpoint in this population. ICU-free days may be more sensitive than either mortality or PCPC alone while capturing aspects of both measures.

Dataset Information

Effect of Cyproheptadine on Ventilatory Support-free Days in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

How to cite this article

Publications

Effect of Cyproheptadine on Ventilatory Support-free Days in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An Open-label, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets