Protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial of normobaric versus hyperbaric oxygen therapy for hypoxemic COVID-19 patients

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

At least 1 in 6 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital and receiving supplemental oxygen will die of complications. More than 50% of patients with COVID-19 that receive invasive treatment such as mechanical ventilation will die in hospital. Such impacts overwhelm the limited intensive care unit resources and may lead to further deaths given inadequate access to care. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is defined as breathing 100% oxygen at a pressure higher than 1.4 atmosphere absolute (ATA). HBOT is safe, including for lungs, when administered by experienced teams and is routinely administrated for a number of approved indications. Preliminary clinical evidence suggests clinical improvement when hypoxemic COVID-19 patients are treated with HBOT.

Objective

We aim to determine the effectiveness of HBOT for improving oxygenation, morbidity, and mortality among hypoxemic COVID-19 patients.

Methods and analysis

This trial is a sequential Bayesian Parallel-group, individually Randomized, Open, Blinded Endpoint controlled trial. Admitted hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen (without mechanical ventilation) to maintain a satisfying tissue oxygenation will be eligible to participate. The anticipated sample size of 234 patients is informed by data from a treatment trial of COVID patients recently published. The intervention group will receive one HBOT per day at 2.0 ATA for 75 minutes. Daily HBOT will be administered until the patient does not require any oxygen supplementation, requires any type of mechanical ventilation, or until day 10 of treatment. Patients in the control group will receive the current standard of care treatment (no HBOT). The primary outcome of this trial will be the 7-level COVID ordinal outcomes scale assessed on Day 7 post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will include: (a) clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay, days with oxygen supplementation, oxygen flow values to obtain a saturation by pulse oximetry ≥90%, intensive care admission and length of stay, days on invasive mechanical ventilation, sleep quality, fatigue, major thrombotic events, the 7-level COVID ordinal outcomes scale on Day 28; mortality, safety); (b) biological outcomes (plasma inflammatory markers); and (c) health system outcomes (cost of care and cost-effectiveness). Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria have been specified. The analytical approach for the primary outcome will use a Bayesian proportional odds ordinal logistic semiparametric model. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. Bayesian posterior probabilities will be calculated every 20 patients to assess accumulating evidence for benefit or harm. A planned subgroup analysis will be performed for pre-specified variables known to impact COVID-19 prognosis and/or HBOT (biologic sex and age).

Discussion

Based on the mortality rate and substantial burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system, it is imperative that solutions be found. HBOT is a non-invasive and low-risk intervention when contraindications are respected. The established safety and relatively low cost of providing HBOT along with its potential to improve the prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients make this intervention worth studying, despite the current limited number of HBOT centres. If this trial finds that HBOT significantly improves outcome and prevents further deterioration leading to critical care for severe COVID-19 patients, practice will change internationally. If no benefit is found from the intervention, then the current standard of care (no HBOT) will be supported by level I evidence.

Trials Registration

NCT04500626

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.15.20154609: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationAllocation & randomization: The random allocation sequence will be computer-generated by an independent statistician using permuted blocks of randomly varying sizes, stratified by center, biological sex and age (<60; ≥60 years).
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysis29 Our estimate of 234 patients randomized 1:1 treatment to control is adequate to achieve 80% power to detect an odds ratio (OR) of 2 and assuming the observed distribution of the ordinal scale at Day 7 in the usual care arm of the Cao et al., New England Journal of Medicine COVID trial (see Table 1).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.