Dataset Information

Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Corticosteroids improve outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. In the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial, we found high probabilities of benefit with dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily. While no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) was found in the conventional, dichotomous subgroup analyses, these analyses have limitations, and HTE could still exist.

Methods

We assessed whether HTE was present for days alive without life support and mortality at Day 90 in the trial according to baseline age, weight, number of comorbidities, category of respiratory failure (type of respiratory support system and oxygen requirements) and predicted risk of mortality using an internal prediction model. We used flexible models for continuous variables and logistic regressions for categorical variables without dichotomisation of the baseline variables of interest. HTE was assessed both visually and with p and S values from likelihood ratio tests.

Results

There was no strong evidence for substantial HTE on either outcome according to any of the baseline variables assessed with all p values >.37 (and all S values <1.43) in the planned analyses and no convincingly strong visual indications of HTE.

Conclusions

We found no strong evidence for HTE with 12 versus 6 mg dexamethasone daily on days alive without life support or mortality at Day 90 in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, although these results cannot rule out HTE either.

SUBMITTER: Granholm A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9874464 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

Granholm Anders A Munch Marie Warrer MW Andersen-Ranberg Nina N Myatra Sheila Nainan SN Vijayaraghavan Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi BKT Venkatesh Balasubramanian B Jha Vivekanand V Wahlin Rebecka Rubenson RR Jakob Stephan M SM Cioccari Luca L Møller Morten Hylander MH Perner Anders A

Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 20221108 2

<h4>Background</h4>Corticosteroids improve outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. In the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial, we found high probabilities of benefit with dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily. While no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) was found in the conventional, dichotomous subgroup analyses, these analyses have limitations, and HTE could still exist.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed whether HTE was present for days alive without life support ...[more]

PMID: 36314057

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days).ResultsOf the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Project description:PurposeTo explore the potential factors impacting the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) and treatment differences between 75 mg/day and 75-225 mg/day dose in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodsWe performed exploratory post hoc subgroup analyses of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in Japan. A total of 538 outpatients aged 20 years or older with a primary diagnosis of MDD who experienced single or recurrent episodes were randomized into three groups: fixed-dose, flexible-dose, or placebo. Venlafaxine ER was initiated at 37.5 mg/day and titrated to 75 mg/day for both fixed-dose and flexible-dose group, and to 225 mg/day for flexible-dose group (if well tolerated). Efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline at Week 8 using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 items (HAM-D17) total score, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-6 items score, and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. The following factors were considered in the subgroup analyses: sex, age, HAM-D17 total score at baseline, duration of MDD, duration of current depressive episode, history of previous depressive episodes, history of previous medications for MDD, and CYP2D6 phenotype. For each subgroup, an analysis of covariance model was fitted and the adjusted mean of the treatment effect and corresponding 95% CI were computed. Due to the exploratory nature of the investigation, no statistical hypothesis testing was used.ResultsVenlafaxine ER improved symptoms of MDD compared with placebo in most subgroups. The subgroup with a long duration of MDD (>22 months) consistently showed greater treatment benefits in the flexible-dose group than in the fixed-dose group.ConclusionThese results suggest that a greater treatment response to venlafaxine ER (up to 225 mg/day) can be seen in patients with a longer duration of MDD. Further investigations are needed to identify additional factors impacting the efficacy of venlafaxine ER.

Project description:BackgroundThe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin on presentation to rule out myocardial infarction (HiSTORIC) study was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with long before-and-after periods, involving seven hospitals across Scotland. Results were divergent for the binary safety endpoint (type 1 or type 4b myocardial infarction or cardiac death) across certain pre-specified analyses, which warranted further investigation. In particular, the calendar-matched analysis produced an odds ratio in the opposite direction to the primary logistic mixed-effects model analysis.MethodsSeveral post-hoc statistical models were fitted to each of the co-primary outcomes of length of hospital stay and safety events, which included adjusting for exposure time, incorporating splines, and fitting a random time effect. We improved control of patient characteristics over time by adjusting for multiple additional covariates using different methods: direct inclusion, regression adjustment for propensity score, and weighting. A data augmentation approach was also conducted aiming to reduce the effect of sparse data bias. Finally, the raw data was examined.ResultsThe new statistical models confirmed the results of the pre-specified trial analysis. In particular, the observed divergence between the calendar-matched and other analyses remained, even after performing the covariate adjustment methods, and after using data augmentation. Divergence was particularly acute for the safety endpoint, which had an event rate of 0.36% overall. Examining the raw data was particularly helpful to assess the sensitivity of the results to small changes in event rates and identify patterns in the data.ConclusionsOur experience reveals the importance of conducting multiple pre-specified sensitivity analyses and examining the raw data, particularly for stepped wedge trials with low event rates or with a small number of sites. Before-and-after analytical approaches that adjust for differences in patient populations but avoid direct modelling of the time trend should be considered in future stepped wedge trials with similar designs.

Project description:BackgroundThe nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone and the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) canagliflozin reduce cardiorenal risk in albuminuric patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). At first glance, the results of Finerenone in Reducing Kidney Failure and Disease Progression in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD) (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02540993) and Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) appear disparate. In FIDELIO-DKD, the primary endpoint had an 18% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7-27] relative risk reduction; in CREDENCE, the primary endpoint had a 30% (95% CI 18-41) relative risk reduction. Unlike CREDENCE, the FIDELIO-DKD trial included patients with high albuminuria but excluded patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The primary endpoint in the FIDELIO-DKD trial was kidney specific and included a sustained decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥40% from baseline. In contrast, the primary endpoint in the CREDENCE trial included a sustained decline in eGFR of ≥57% from baseline and cardiovascular (CV) death. This post hoc exploratory analysis investigated how differences in trial design-inclusion/exclusion criteria and definition of primary outcomes-influenced observed treatment effects.MethodsPatients from FIDELIO-DKD who met the CKD inclusion criteria of the CREDENCE study (urine albumin: creatinine ratio >300-5000 mg/g and an eGFR of 30-<90 mL/min/1.73 m2 at screening) were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was a cardiorenal composite (CV death, kidney failure, eGFR decrease of ≥57% sustained for ≥4 weeks or renal death). Patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD. Therefore, in a sensitivity analysis, we further adjusted for the baseline prevalence of heart failure.ResultsOf 4619/5674 (81.4%) patients who met the subgroup inclusion criteria, 49.6% were treated with finerenone and 50.4% received placebo. The rate of the cardiorenal composite endpoint was 43.9/1000 patient-years with finerenone compared with 59.5/1000 patient-years with placebo. The relative risk was significantly reduced by 26% with finerenone versus placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.87)]. In CREDENCE, the rate of the cardiorenal composite endpoint was 43.2/1000 patient-years with canagliflozin compared with 61.2/1000 patient-years with placebo; a 30% risk reduction was observed with canagliflozin [HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.59-0.82)].ConclusionsThis analysis highlights the pitfalls of direct comparisons between trials. When key differences in trial design are considered, FIDELIO-DKD and CREDENCE demonstrate cardiorenal benefits of a similar magnitude.

Dataset Information

Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets