Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37634234›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2023

Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from high dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian post-hoc reanalysis of the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial.

Sylvie Chevret, Lila Bouadma, Claire Dupuis, Charles Burdet, Jean-François Timsit, COVIDICUS RCT group

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04344730 (Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in ICU Patients With Covid-19 pneumonia_COVIDICUS), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04344730 naunknown statusnot on this map

Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in ICU Patients With Covid-19 pneumonia_COVIDICUS

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2020 to 2021Enrolled550ConditionsAcute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure, COVID-19ArmsDexamethasone injection, placebo, conventional oxygen, CPAP, HFNO
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sylvie ChevretECSTRRA, UMR 1153, Saint Louis Hospital, University Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Lila BouadmaMedical and Infectious Diseases ICU, APHP Bichat Hospital, 75018, Paris, France.
Claire DupuisUniversité Paris Cité, IAME, INSERM, UMR 1137, 75018, Paris, France.
Charles BurdetUniversité Paris Cité, IAME, INSERM, UMR 1137, 75018, Paris, France.
Jean-François TimsitMedical and Infectious Diseases ICU, APHP Bichat Hospital, 75018, Paris, France. Jean-francois.timsit@bch.aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6063-7383
COVIDICUS RCT group
Inserm · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FRInstitut Pasteur de Lille · FR

Funding

Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux PHRC-N 2020-001457-43
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching very important difference in the effect-size. In the COVIDICUS trial, no evidence of additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20) was found. We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care 6 mg dose of DXM (DXMSoC).

methodsWe performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXMSoc or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The outcome was the 60 day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with treatment effect measured on the hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model. Bayesian analyses allowed to compute the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit (HR < 0.95), and that of a potential harm (HR > 1.05). Bayesian measures of interaction then quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the HR of death differed across the subsets by 20%. Primary analyses used noninformative priors, centred on HR = 1.00. Sensitivity analyses used sceptical and enthusiastic priors, based on null (HR = 1.00) or benefit (HR = 0.95) effects.

resultsOverall, the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit and potential harm was 29.0 and 51.1%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction (i) according to age (Pr Interact, 84%), with a 86.5% probability of benefit in patients aged below 70 compared to 22% in those aged above 70; (ii) according to the time since symptoms onset (Pr Interact, 99%), with a 99.9% probability of a more than trivial benefit when lower than 7 days compared to a < 0.1% probability when delayed by 7 days or more; and (iii) according to use of remdesivir (Pr Interact, 91%), with a 90.1% probability of benefit in patients receiving remdesivir compared to 19.1% in those who did not.

conclusionsIn this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings.

trial registrationNCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1 ); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43 ).

Indexed as

Acute respiratory failureARDSBayesian analysisCritical careDoseInteractionRemdesivirSARS-Cov-2SepsisSteroids

Identifiers

PMID37634234
PMCPMC10460760
OpenAlexW4386202971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.