Dataset Information

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia.

ABSTRACT: Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

SUBMITTER: Moskowitz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9055785 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia.

Moskowitz Ari A Shotwell Matthew S MS Gibbs Kevin W KW Harkins Michelle M Rosenberg Yves Y Troendle James J Merck Lisa H LH Files D Clark DC de Wit Marjolein M Hudock Kristin K Thompson B Taylor BT Gong Michelle N MN Ginde Adit A AA Douin David J DJ Brown Samuel M SM Rubin Eileen E Joly Meghan Morrison MM Wang Li L Lindsell Christopher J CJ Bernard Gordon R GR Semler Matthew W MW Collins Sean P SP Self Wesley H WH

Chest 20220430 4

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new ...[more]

PMID: 35504307

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical audit, sometimes including public reporting, is an important foundation of high quality health care. We aimed to assess the validity of a novel outcome metric, days at home up to 30 days after surgery, as a surgical outcome measure in clinical trials and quality assurance.MethodsThis was a multicentre, registry-based cohort study. We used prospectively collected hospital and national healthcare registry data obtained from patients aged 18 years or older undergoing a broad range of surgeries in Sweden over a 10-year period. The association between days at home up to 30 days after surgery and patient (older age, poorer physical status, comorbidity) and surgical (elective or non-elective, complexity, duration) risk factors, process of care outcomes (re-admissions, discharge destination), clinical outcomes (major complications, 30-day mortality) and death up to 1 year after surgery were measured.FindingsFrom January, 2005, to December, 2014, we obtained demographic and perioperative data on 636,885 patients from 21 Swedish hospitals. Mortality at 30 days and one year was 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The median (IQR) days at home up to 30 days after surgery was 27 (23-29), being significantly lower among high-risk patients, those recovering from more complex surgical procedures, and suffering serious postoperative complications (all p < 0.0001). Patients with 8 days or less at home up to 30 days after surgery had a nearly 7-fold higher risk of death up to 1 year postoperatively when compared with those with 29 or 30 days at home (adjusted HR 6.78 [95% CI: 6.44-7.13]).InterpretationDays at home up to 30 days after surgery is a valid, easy to measure patient-centred outcome metric. It is highly sensitive to changes in surgical risk and impact of complications, and has prognostic importance; it is therefore a valuable endpoint for perioperative clinical trials and quality assurance.FundingSwedish National Research Council Medicine and Stockholm County Council ALF-project grant (LE), and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (PM).

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.

Project description:BackgroundVentilator-free days (VFDs) are a composite endpoint increasingly used as the primary outcome in critical care trials. However, because of the skewed distribution and competitive risk between components, sample size estimation remains challenging. This systematic review was conducted to systematically assess whether the sample size was congruent, as calculated to evaluate VFDs in trials, with VFDs' distribution and the impact of alternative methods on sample size estimation.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted within the PubMed and Embase databases for randomized clinical trials in adults with VFDs as the primary outcome until December 2021. We focused on peer-reviewed journals with 2021 impact factors greater than five. After reviewing definitions of VFDs, we extracted the sample size and methods used for its estimation. The data were collected by two independent investigators and recorded in a standardized, pilot-tested forms tool. Sample sizes were calculated using alternative statistical approaches, and risks of bias were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsOf the 26 clinical trials included, 19 (73%) raised "some concerns" when assessing risks of bias. Twenty-four (92%) trials were two-arm superiority trials, and 23 (89%) were conducted at multiple sites. Almost all the trials (96%) were unable to consider the unique distribution of VFDs and death as a competitive risk. Moreover, significant heterogeneity was found in the definitions of VFDs, especially regarding varying start time and type of respiratory support. Methods for sample size estimation were also heterogeneous, and simple models, such as the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum test, were used in 14 (54%) trials. Finally, the sample sizes calculated varied by a factor of 1.6 to 17.4.ConclusionsA standardized definition and methodology for VFDs, including the use of a core outcome set, seems to be required. Indeed, this could facilitate the interpretation of findings in clinical trials, as well as their construction, especially the sample size estimation which is a trade-off between cost, ethics, and statistical power. Systematic review registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282304. Registered 15 December 2021 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021282304 ).

Dataset Information

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia.

Publications

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets