Modeling in-Hospital Patient Survival During the First 28 Days After Intensive Care Unit Admission: a Prognostic Model for Clinical Trials in General Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to develop a model for estimating patient 28-day in-hospital mortality using 2 different statistical approaches. DESIGN: The study was designed to develop an outcome prediction model for 28-day in-hospital mortality using (a) logistic regression with random effects and (b) a multilevel Cox proportional hazards model. SETTING: The study involved 305 intensive care units (ICUs) from the basic Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 cohort. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 17138) were from the SAPS 3 database with follow-up data pertaining to the first 28 days in hospital after ICU admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The database was divided randomly into 5 roughly equal-sized parts (at the ICU level). It was thus possible to run the model-building procedure 5 times, each time taking four fifths of the sample as a development set and the remaining fifth as the validation set. At 28 days after ICU admission, 19.98% of the patients were still in the hospital. Because of the different sampling space and outcome variables, both models presented a better fit in this sample than did the SAPS 3 admission score calibrated to vital status at hospital discharge, both on the general population and in major subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical methods can be used to model the 28-day in-hospital mortality better than the SAPS 3 admission model. However, because the logistic regression approach is specifically designed to forecast 28-day mortality, and given the high uncertainty associated with the assumption of the proportionality of risks in the Cox model, the logistic regression approach proved to be superior.

The Effect of Statins on Mortality in Septic Patients: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: Statins are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide and their recently discovered anti-inflammatory effect seems to have an important role in inhibiting proinflammatory cytokine production, chemokines expression and counteracting the harmful effects of sepsis on the coagulation system. We decided to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials ever published on statin therapy in septic patients to evaluate their effect on survival and length of hospital stay. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of statins versus any comparator in septic patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data from 650 patients in 5 randomized controlled studies were analyzed. No difference in mortality between patients receiving statins versus control (44/322 [14%] in the statins group vs 50/328 [15%] in the control arm, RR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.26], p = 0.6) was observed. No differences in hospital stay (p = 0.7) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Published data show that statin therapy has no effect on mortality in the overall population of adult septic patients. Scientific evidence on statins role in septic patients is still limited and larger randomized trials should be performed on this topic.

Five-Year Review of an International Clinical Research-Training Program

The exponential increase in clinical research has profoundly changed medical sciences. Evidence that has accumulated in the past three decades from clinical trials has led to the proposal that clinical care should not be based solely on clinical expertise and patient values, and should integrate robust data from systematic research. As a consequence, clinical research has become more complex and methods have become more rigorous, and evidence is usually not easily translated into clinical practice. Therefore, the instruction of clinical research methods for scientists and clinicians must adapt to this new reality. To address this challenge, a global distance-learning clinical research-training program was developed, based on collaborative learning, the pedagogical goal of which was to develop critical thinking skills in clinical research. We describe and analyze the challenges and possible solutions of this course after 5 years of experience (2008-2012) with this program. Through evaluation by students and faculty, we identified and reviewed the following challenges of our program: 1) student engagement and motivation, 2) impact of heterogeneous audience on learning, 3) learning in large groups, 4) enhancing group learning, 5) enhancing social presence, 6) dropouts, 7) quality control, and 8) course management. We discuss these issues and potential alternatives with regard to our research and background.

Atorvastatin versus Bezafibrate in Mixed Hyperlipidaemia : Randomised Clinical Trial of Efficacy and Safety (the ATOMIX Study)

OBJECTIVE: Combined hyperlipidaemia is a common and highly atherogenic lipid phenotype with multiple lipoprotein abnormalities that are difficult to normalise with single-drug therapy. The ATOMIX multicentre, controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and bezafibrate in patients with diet-resistant combined hyperlipidaemia. PATIENTS AND STUDY DESIGN: Following a 6-week placebo run-in period, 138 patients received atorvastatin 10mg or bezafibrate 400mg once daily in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. To meet predefined low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) target levels, atorvastatin dosages were increased to 20mg or 40mg once daily after 8 and 16 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, atorvastatin achieved greater reductions in LDL-C than bezafibrate (percentage decrease 35 vs 5; p < 0.0001), while bezafibrate achieved greater reductions in triglyceride than atorvastatin (percentage decrease 33 vs 21; p < 0.05) and greater increases in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) [percentage increase 28 vs 17; p < 0.01 ]. Target LDL-C levels (according to global risk) were attained in 62% of atorvastatin recipients and 6% of bezafibrate recipients, and triglyceride levels <200 mg/dL were achieved in 52% and 60% of patients, respectively. In patients with normal baseline HDL-C, bezafibrate was superior to atorvastatin for raising HDL-C, while in those with baseline HDL-C <35 mg/dL, the two drugs raised HDL-C to a similar extent after adjustment for baseline values. Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The results show that atorvastatin has an overall better efficacy than bezafibrate in concomitantly reaching LDL-C and triglyceride target levels in combined hyperlipidaemia, thus supporting its use as monotherapy in patients with this lipid phenotype.