MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391530532 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000001045

Nebulized Furosemide for Pulmonary Inflammation in Intubated Patients With COVID-19: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

2024· article· en· W4391530532 on OpenAlexafffund
John Muscedere, David M. Maslove, Christopher Barden, Donald F. Weaver, J. Gordon Boyd, Stephanie Sibley, Tracy Boyd, Oleksa Rewa, Martin Albert, Marios Roussos, Patrick A. Norman, Andrew G. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBausch Health (Canada)Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
FundersCanadian Frailty NetworkLifeArcEdwards Lifesciences
KeywordsFurosemideMedicineMechanical ventilationRandomized controlled trialPlaceboIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaIntubationVentilation (architecture)Respiratory failureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 is associated with morbidity and mortality. Current anti-inflammatory therapies are effective but are given systemically and have significant side effects. Furosemide has anti-inflammatory properties, can be administered by inhalation, and is inexpensive. We investigated the efficacy of nebulized furosemide as an adjunctive therapy for COVID-19 respiratory failure. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Multicenter ICU study. PATIENTS: Adults requiring invasive mechanical ventilation secondary to COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized within 48 hours of intubation to receive inhaled furosemide or placebo until day 28, death, or liberation from mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was stopped early due to waning incidence of COVID-19; 39 patients were available for analysis with mean ± sd age of 70.5 (10.8) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II 26.1 (7.8) and F io 2 60.0% (21.9). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. For the primary outcome of change in Pa o 2 /F io 2 ratio between day 1 and day 6, it was +31.4 (83.5) in the furosemide arm versus +20.1 (92.8) in the control ( p = 0.58). For secondary outcomes, furosemide versus control: 60-day mortality was 48% versus 71% ( p = 0.20), hospital stay was 25.6 (21.9) versus 27.4 (25.0) days, p = 0.94 and VFD was 6.0 (9.1) versus 3.1 (7.1), p value of equals to 0.28. A post hoc analysis of the hierarchical composite outcome, alive and ventilator-free favored furosemide. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of inhaled furosemide for COVID-19 respiratory failure, differences in Pa o 2 /F io 2 ratio to day 6 and other clinical outcomes were not significantly different, although the trial was underpowered due to early termination. Given the favorable profile of inhaled furosemide, further study is warranted in disease states where acute pulmonary inflammation contributes to the underlying pathophysiology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207