Handling Oxygenation Targets in COVID-19 (HOT-COVID)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031|
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : June 11, 2020
Last Update Posted : November 1, 2021
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Oxygen Toxicity||Drug: Oxygen||Phase 4|
Acutely ill adult COVID-19 patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at risk of life-threatening hypoxia, and are provided supplementary oxygen. Liberal use of supplementary oxygen may increase the number of serious adverse events including death. However, the use of supplementary oxygen therapy, and the optimal oxygenation target in COVID-19 patients have not yet been studied.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends an oxygen therapy during resuscitation of COVID-19 patients to achieve an SpO2 of 94% or more, and 90% or more when stable (non-pregnant patients). The Surviving Sepsis Campaing (SSC) recommends a conservative oxygenation strategy for COVID-19 patients targeting an SpO2 no higher than 96%. Both are based on a systematic review and metanalysis from 2018, investigating the association with mortality and higher versus lower oxygenation strategies in critically ill patients in general.
COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU and treated with positive pressure ventilation fulfil the 2012 Berlin criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Current practice regarding supplementary oxygen therapy in patients with ARDS follows the regimen used in an randomised clinical trial (RCT) from 2000 comparing lower versus higher tidal volumes; i.e. a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) of 55-80 mmHg (7.3-10.7 kPa) or a peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) of 88-95%.
Of note, a recent published RCT demonstrated a lowered all-cause mortality when targeting a higher oxygenation target (PaO2: 12-14 kPa [90-105 mmHg]) compared to a lower oxygenation target (PaO2: 7.3-9.3 [55-70 mmHg]) in ARDS patients.
The quality and quantity of the current body of evidence regarding oxygenation targets in ARDS is still low.
The aim of the HOT-COVID trial is to evaluate the benefits and harms of two targets of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) in guiding the oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults COVID-19 patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure at ICU admission.
The HOT-COVID trial is an amendment to the HOT-ICU trial (NCT03174002)
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||780 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||Single (Outcomes Assessor)|
|Official Title:||Handling Oxygenation Targets in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in the Intensive Care Unit: A Randomised Clinical Trial of a Lower Versus a Higher Oxygenation Target|
|Actual Study Start Date :||August 25, 2020|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||December 1, 2022|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||March 1, 2024|
Experimental: Low oxygenation target
Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) 8 kPa (60 mmHg)
Oxygen administration to achieve a PaO2 of 8 kPa (60 mmHg) from ICU admission to ICU discharge
Other Name: Inspired oxygen
Active Comparator: High oxygenation target
Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) 12 kPa (90 mmHg)
Oxygen administration to achieve a PaO2 of 12 kPa (90 mmHg) from ICU admission to ICU discharge
Other Name: Inspired oxygen
- Days alive without organ support [ Time Frame: Within 90 days ]Days alive and free from mechanical ventilation, circulatory support and renal replacement therapy
- 90-days mortality [ Time Frame: 90 days ]All-cause mortality 90 days after randomisation
- Days alive out of the hospital [ Time Frame: Within 90 days ]Days alive out of the hospital
- Number of patients with one or more serious adverse events [ Time Frame: Until ICU discharge, maximum 90 days ]Serious adverse events are defined as new episode of shock and new episodes of ischaemic events including myocardial or intestinal ischaemia or ischaemic stroke
- 1-year mortality [ Time Frame: 1 year ]All-cause mortality 1 year after randomisation
- Quality of life assessement using the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L telephone interview [ Time Frame: 1 year ]EQ-5D-5L 1-year after randomisation
- Cognitive function 1-year after randomisation as assessed using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) score in selected sites [ Time Frame: 1 year ]RBANS score 1 year after randomisation at selected sites. The overall RBANS global cognition score, as well as each cognitive domain score, range from 40 to 160 with 100 ± 15 being the age-adjusted mean ± standard deviation. Higher scores indicate better performance.
- Carbon monoxide diffusion capacity [ Time Frame: 1 year ]Carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (DLCO) 1 year after randomisation at selected sites.
- A health economic analysis [ Time Frame: 90 days ]Cost-effectiveness versus cost-minimisation analyses after completion of the trial, based on the primary outcome.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT04425031
|Contact: Bodil Steen Rasmussen, MD, PhDemail@example.com|
|Contact: Thomas Lass Klitgaard, MDfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Dept. of Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital||Recruiting|
|Aalborg, Denmark, 9000|
|Contact: Olav Lilleholt Schjørring, MD, PhD email@example.com|
|Dept. of Intensive Care 4131, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet||Recruiting|
|Copenhagen, Denmark, 2100|
|Contact: Bjørn Brand, MD firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Dept. of Intensive Care, Herlev Hospital||Recruiting|
|Herlev, Denmark, 2730|
|Contact: Anne S Andreasen, MD email@example.com|
|Dept. of Intensive Care, Hillerød Hospital||Recruiting|
|Hillerød, Denmark, 3400|
|Contact: Morten Bestle, MD, PhD firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Dept. of Intensive Care, Kolding Hospital||Recruiting|
|Kolding, Denmark, 6000|
|Contact: Anne C Brøchner, MD email@example.com|
|Dept. of Intensive Care, Køge Hospital||Recruiting|
|Køge, Denmark, 4600|
|Contact: Valerij Khridin, MD firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Randers, Denmark, 8930|
|Contact: Thorbjørn Grøfte, MD, PhD email@example.com|
|Dept. of Intensive Care, Slagelse Hospital||Recruiting|
|Slagelse, Denmark, 4200|
|Contact: Susanne A Iversen, MD firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Oslo University Hospital||Recruiting|
|Contact: Jon-Henrik Laake, MD email@example.com|
|Basel, Switzerland, 4031|
|Contact: Martin Siegemund, MD firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator:||Bodil Steen Rasmussen, MD, PhD||Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark|
|Study Chair:||Bodil Steen Rasmussen, MD, PhD||Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark|