Cargando…

Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Control-arm mortality varies between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) RCTs. METHODS: We systematically reviewed ARDS RCTs that commenced recruitment after publication of the American–European Consensus (AECC) definition (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane central register of control...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saha, Rohit, Assouline, Benjamin, Mason, Georgina, Douiri, Abdel, Summers, Charlotte, Shankar-Hari, Manu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9768208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33812666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.02.027
_version_ 1784854116909973504
author Saha, Rohit
Assouline, Benjamin
Mason, Georgina
Douiri, Abdel
Summers, Charlotte
Shankar-Hari, Manu
author_facet Saha, Rohit
Assouline, Benjamin
Mason, Georgina
Douiri, Abdel
Summers, Charlotte
Shankar-Hari, Manu
author_sort Saha, Rohit
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Control-arm mortality varies between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) RCTs. METHODS: We systematically reviewed ARDS RCTs that commenced recruitment after publication of the American–European Consensus (AECC) definition (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials; January 1994 to October 2020). We assessed concordance of RCT inclusion criteria to ARDS consensus definitions and whether exclusion criteria are strongly or poorly justified. We estimated the proportion of between-trial difference in control-arm 28-day mortality explained by the inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics using meta-regression. RESULTS: A literature search identified 43 709 records. One hundred and fifty ARDS RCTs were included; 146/150 (97.3%) RCTs defined ARDS inclusion criteria using AECC/Berlin definitions. Deviations from consensus definitions, primarily aimed at improving ARDS diagnostic certainty, frequently related to duration of hypoxaemia (117/146; 80.1%). Exclusion criteria could be grouped by rationale for selection into strongly or poorly justified criteria. Common poorly justified exclusions included pregnancy related, age, and comorbidities (infectious/immunosuppression, hepatic, renal, and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Control-arm 28-day mortality varied between ARDS RCTs (mean: 29.8% [95% confidence interval: 27.0–32.7%; I(2)=88.8%; τ(2)=0.02; P<0.01]), and differed significantly between RCTs with different Pao(2):FiO(2) ratio inclusion thresholds (26.6–39.9 kPa vs <26.6 kPa; P<0.01). In a meta-regression model, inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics accounted for 30.6% of between-trial difference (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In most ARDS RCTs, consensus definitions are modified to use as inclusion criteria. Between-RCT mortality differences are mostly explained by the Pao(2):FiO(2) ratio threshold within the consensus definitions. An exclusion criteria framework can be applied when designing and reporting exclusion criteria in future ARDS RCTs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9768208
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97682082022-12-21 Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis Saha, Rohit Assouline, Benjamin Mason, Georgina Douiri, Abdel Summers, Charlotte Shankar-Hari, Manu Br J Anaesth Critical Care BACKGROUND: Control-arm mortality varies between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) RCTs. METHODS: We systematically reviewed ARDS RCTs that commenced recruitment after publication of the American–European Consensus (AECC) definition (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials; January 1994 to October 2020). We assessed concordance of RCT inclusion criteria to ARDS consensus definitions and whether exclusion criteria are strongly or poorly justified. We estimated the proportion of between-trial difference in control-arm 28-day mortality explained by the inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics using meta-regression. RESULTS: A literature search identified 43 709 records. One hundred and fifty ARDS RCTs were included; 146/150 (97.3%) RCTs defined ARDS inclusion criteria using AECC/Berlin definitions. Deviations from consensus definitions, primarily aimed at improving ARDS diagnostic certainty, frequently related to duration of hypoxaemia (117/146; 80.1%). Exclusion criteria could be grouped by rationale for selection into strongly or poorly justified criteria. Common poorly justified exclusions included pregnancy related, age, and comorbidities (infectious/immunosuppression, hepatic, renal, and human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Control-arm 28-day mortality varied between ARDS RCTs (mean: 29.8% [95% confidence interval: 27.0–32.7%; I(2)=88.8%; τ(2)=0.02; P<0.01]), and differed significantly between RCTs with different Pao(2):FiO(2) ratio inclusion thresholds (26.6–39.9 kPa vs <26.6 kPa; P<0.01). In a meta-regression model, inclusion criteria and RCT design characteristics accounted for 30.6% of between-trial difference (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In most ARDS RCTs, consensus definitions are modified to use as inclusion criteria. Between-RCT mortality differences are mostly explained by the Pao(2):FiO(2) ratio threshold within the consensus definitions. An exclusion criteria framework can be applied when designing and reporting exclusion criteria in future ARDS RCTs. British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2021-07 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9768208/ /pubmed/33812666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.02.027 Text en © 2021 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Critical Care
Saha, Rohit
Assouline, Benjamin
Mason, Georgina
Douiri, Abdel
Summers, Charlotte
Shankar-Hari, Manu
Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort impact of differences in acute respiratory distress syndrome randomised controlled trial inclusion and exclusion criteria: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Critical Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9768208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33812666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.02.027
work_keys_str_mv AT saharohit impactofdifferencesinacuterespiratorydistresssyndromerandomisedcontrolledtrialinclusionandexclusioncriteriasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT assoulinebenjamin impactofdifferencesinacuterespiratorydistresssyndromerandomisedcontrolledtrialinclusionandexclusioncriteriasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT masongeorgina impactofdifferencesinacuterespiratorydistresssyndromerandomisedcontrolledtrialinclusionandexclusioncriteriasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT douiriabdel impactofdifferencesinacuterespiratorydistresssyndromerandomisedcontrolledtrialinclusionandexclusioncriteriasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT summerscharlotte impactofdifferencesinacuterespiratorydistresssyndromerandomisedcontrolledtrialinclusionandexclusioncriteriasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shankarharimanu impactofdifferencesinacuterespiratorydistresssyndromerandomisedcontrolledtrialinclusionandexclusioncriteriasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis