Medical and Infectious Diseases Intensive Care Unit, Bichat-Claude Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Infection, anti-microbien, modélisation, évolution, Université de Paris U1137, Paris, France.
JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Sep 1;182(9):906-916. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2168.
The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated.
To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021.
Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2.
The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs).
Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant.
In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.
对于因 COVID-19 肺炎导致的严重急性低氧呼吸衰竭(AHRF)患者,高剂量地塞米松与标准治疗相比是否有益仍存在争议,氧合策略也是如此。
评估与标准治疗地塞米松相比,高剂量地塞米松的益处,并评估高流量鼻氧(HFNo2)或持续气道正压通气(CPAP)与标准氧支持(o2SC)相比的益处。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项多中心、安慰剂对照的随机临床试验,于 2020 年 4 月至 2021 年 1 月在法国的 19 个重症监护病房(ICU)进行。符合条件的患者为连续入住 ICU 的 COVID-19 AHRF 成年患者。随机分组采用 2×3 析因设计,用于地塞米松和氧合策略;不符合至少一种氧合策略条件和/或已接受有创机械通气(IMV)的患者仅接受地塞米松随机分组。所有患者均随访 60 天。数据于 2021 年 5 月 26 日至 7 月 31 日进行分析。
患者接受标准地塞米松(地塞米松磷酸盐 6 mg/d,持续 10 天[或在 RECOVERY 试验结果公布前使用安慰剂])或高剂量地塞米松(地塞米松磷酸盐 20 mg/d,第 1-5 天,然后第 6-10 天 10 mg/d)。不需要 IMV 的患者还随机接受 o2SC、CPAP 或 HFNo2。
主要结局是第 60 天的全因死亡率,评估地塞米松干预的时间,以及第 28 天的 IMV 需求,评估氧合干预的时间。使用比例 Cox 模型计算干预组之间的差异,并表示为危险比(HRs)。
在 841 名筛选患者中,546 名患者(中位数[IQR]年龄,67.4[59.3-73.1]岁;414[75.8%]为男性)在标准地塞米松(276 名患者,包括 37 名接受安慰剂)或高剂量地塞米松(270 名患者)之间进行随机分组。其中,333 名患者在 o2SC(109 名患者,包括 56 名接受标准地塞米松)、CPAP(109 名患者,包括 57 名接受标准地塞米松)和 HFNo2(115 名患者,包括 56 名接受标准地塞米松)之间进行随机分组。标准地塞米松组和高剂量地塞米松组 60 天死亡率无差异(HR,0.96[95%CI,0.69-1.33];P=0.79)。28 天时 o2 支持组的 IMV 标准累积发生率无显著差异(o2SC 与 CPAP:HR,1.08[95%CI,0.71-1.63];o2SC 与 HFNo2:HR,1.04[95%CI,0.69-1.55])或 60 天死亡率(o2SC 与 CPAP:HR,0.97[95%CI,0.58-1.61;o2SC 与 HFNo2:HR,0.89[95%CI,0.53-1.47])。干预措施之间无显著相互作用。
在这项针对因 COVID-19 相关 AHRF 入住 ICU 的患者的随机临床试验中,高剂量地塞米松并未显著提高 60 天生存率。在最初未接受 IMV 的患者中,氧合策略并未显著改变 28 天 IMV 需求风险。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04344730;EudraCT:2020-001457-43。