Search

Abstract Background Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches. Methods This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality. Results There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p

BackgroundTo date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.AimTo elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.MethodsThis was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.ResultsOverall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and

Tumour-associated angiogenesis play key roles in tumour growth and cancer metastasis. Consequently, several anti-angiogenic drugs such as sunitinib and axitinib have been approved for use as anti-cancer therapies. However, the majority of these drugs target the vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA)/VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2) pathway and have shown mixed outcome, largely due to development of resistances and increased tumour aggressiveness. In this study, we used the zebrafish model to screen for novel anti-angiogenic molecules from a library of compounds derived from natural products. From this, we identified canthin-6-one, an indole alkaloid, which inhibited zebrafish intersegmental vessel (ISV) and sub-intestinal vessel development. Further characterisation revealed that treatment of canthin-6-one reduced ISV endothelial cell number and inhibited proliferation of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), suggesting that canthin-6-one inhibits endothelial cell proliferation. Of note, canthin-6-one did not inhibit VEGFA-induced phosphorylation of VEGFR2 in HUVECs and downstream phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Erk) in leading ISV endothelial cells in zebrafish, suggesting that canthin-6-one inhibits angiogenesis independent of the VEGFA/VEGFR2 pathway. Importantly, we found that canthin-6-one impairs tumour-associated angiogenesis in a zebrafish B16F10 melanoma cell xenograft model and synergises with VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib malate to inhibit developmental angiogenesis. In summary, we showed that canthin-6-one exhibits anti-angiogenic properties in both developmental and pathological contexts in zebrafish, independent of the VEGFA/VEGFR2 pathway and demonstrate that canthin-6-one may hold value for further development as a novel anti-angiogenic drug.

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 2 National Centre for Infectious Diseases, 3 Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 4 Division of Infectious Diseases, University Medicine Cluster, National University Hospital, 5 Department of Infectious Diseases, Singapore General Hospital, 6 Department of Infectious Diseases, Changi General Hospital, 7 Infectious Diseases Care Pte Ltd, Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, 8 The Novena Medical Specialists, Mount Elizabeth Novena Specialist Centre, 9 Department of Care and Counselling, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 10Department of Pharmacy, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11Department of Pharmacy, Singapore General Hospital, 12Department of Pharmacy, National University Hospital, Singapore [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 53-year-old Chinese man with hypertension developed exertional dyspnea after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. It reports the symptoms worsened, leading to chest discomfort, abnormal electrocardiogram (ECG) findings, and cardiomegaly. It mentions initial pneumonia treatment, condition worsened, leading to pericardiocentesis. It highlights the symptoms improved after the procedure, and was discharged after monitoring.

Background Objective Methods Results Conclusion Fifty years since its inception, Light's criteria have aided in classifying pleural effusions (PEs) as exudates if 1 or more criteria are met. Thoracic ultrasound (US) emerges as a non‐invasive technique for point of care use especially if pleural procedures are contemplated.We aimed to develop a score based on radiological and US features that could separate exudates from transudates without serum and pleural fluid biochemical tests necessary for Light's criteria.A prospective review of consecutive patients with PE who underwent thoracocentesis was performed. CXRs were evaluated for laterality followed by US for echogenicity, pleural nodularity, thickening and septations. PE was classified as exudate or transudate according to Light's criteria and corroborated with albumin gradient. A score combining radiological and US features was developed.We recruited 201 patients with PE requiring thoracocentesis. Mean age was 64 years, 51% were females, 164 (81.6%) were exudates, and 37 (18.4%) were transudates. Assigning 1‐point for Diaphragmatic nodularity, Unilateral, Echogenicity, Pleural Thickening and Septations, DUETS ranged from 1 to 5. DUETS ≥2 indicated high likelihood for exudate (PPV 98.8%, NPV 100%) with 1% misclassification versus 6.9% using Light's criteria (p < 0.001).DUETS separated exudates from transudates with good accuracy, and could obviate paired serum and pleural fluid tests necessary for Light's criteria computation. Our study reflected real world practice where DUETS performed better than Light's criteria for PE that arose from more than one disease processes, and in the evaluation of patients with PE who have received diuretics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Elective surgeries were suspended during the national lockdown in March 2020 to curb the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. We sought to evaluate the impact of the lockdown on cataract surgeries and suggest lessons for future outbreaks. Study design: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to examine rates of cataract surgery before and during the lockdown. Methods: We used national cataract surgical data between 2015 and 2021 from the Malaysian Cataract Surgery Registry. Segmented regression with a seasonally adjusted Poisson model was used for the analysis. Stratified analyses were performed to establish whether the effect of the lockdown on cataract surgeries varied by hospital designation, type of cataract service, sex, and age groups. Results: Cataract surgeries began falling in March 2020 at the onset of the lockdown, reached a trough in April 2020, and subsequently increased but never recovered to pre-lockdown levels. Cataract surgical rates in December 2021 were still 43 % below the expected surgical volume, equivalent to 2513 lost cataract surgeries. There was no evidence of a differential effect of the lockdown between COVID-19 designated and non-COVID-19 designated hospitals. The relative decrease in cataract surgical rates appears to have been greatest in outreach services and in people 40 years and older. Conclusions: The lockdown caused an immediate reduction in cataract surgical rates to nearly half of its baseline rate. Despite its gradual recovery, further delays remain to be expected should there be no redistribution or increase in resources to support backlogs and incoming new cases.

Aims: Traditional approaches to designing clinical trials for heart failure (HF) have historically relied on expertise and past practices. However, the evolving landscape of healthcare, marked by the advent of novel data science applications and increased data availability, offers a compelling opportunity to transition towards a data-driven paradigm in trial design. This research aims to evaluate the scope and determinants of disparities between clinical trials and registries by leveraging natural language processing for the analysis of trial eligibility criteria. The findings contribute to the establishment of a robust design framework for guiding future HF trials., Methods and Results: Interventional phase III trials registered for HF on ClinicalTrials.gov as of the end of 2021 were identified. Natural language processing was used to extract and structure the eligibility criteria for quantitative analysis. The most common criteria for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were applied to estimate patient eligibility as a proportion of registry patients in the ASIAN-HF (N = 4868) and BIOSTAT-CHF registries (N = 2545). Of the 375 phase III trials for HF, 163 HFrEF trials were identified. In these trials, the most frequently encountered inclusion criteria were New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (69%), worsening HF (23%), and natriuretic peptides (18%), whereas the most frequent comorbidity-based exclusion criteria were acute coronary syndrome (64%), renal disease (55%), and valvular heart disease (47%). On average, 20% of registry patients were eligible for HFrEF trials. Eligibility distributions did not differ (P = 0.18) between Asian [median eligibility 0.20, interquartile range (IQR) 0.08-0.43] and European registry populations (median 0.17, IQR 0.06-0.39). With time, HFrEF trials became more restrictive, where patient eligibility declined from 0.40 in 1985-2005 to 0.19 in 2016-2022 (P = 0.03). When frequency among trials is taken into consideration, the eligibility criteria that were most restrictive were prior myocardial infarction, NYHA class, age, and prior HF hospitalization., Conclusions: Based on 14 trial criteria, only one-fifth of registry patients were eligible for phase III HFrEF trials. Overall eligibility rates did not differ between the Asian and European patient cohorts., (© 2024 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Abstract: Since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), the mortality attributable to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has decreased by 80%. Newer antiretroviral agents are highly efficacious, have minimal side effects as compared to older drugs, and can be formulated as combination tablets to reduce patients' pill burden. Despite these advances, 680,000 people worldwide died of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related illnesses in 2020. The National ART and Monitoring Recommendations by the National HIV Programme have been created to guide physicians on the prescribing of ART based on the patients' needs. These recommendations are based on international guidelines and tailored to the local context and unique domestic considerations. We hoped that with the publication of these recommendations, the care of people living with HIV can be enhanced, bringing us closer to ending HIV in our lifetime., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Singapore Medical Journal.)

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials., Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life., Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers., Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV 1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV 1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV 1 increase (adjusted R 2 : 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R 2 : 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R 2 : 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE., Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline., Competing Interests: CP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. JT is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. CB reports advisory board participation of Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Takeda, ValeoPharma, honorarium for presentations for AstraZeneca/Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Sanofi-Regeneron, ValeoPharma and grants paid to UBC from BioHaven, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline. GCC declares relevant research support from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. GK has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi. He has also given lectures at meetings supported by Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. DL reports personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. TNT is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. RA-L has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi, and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. SB-A has received honorarium for participation in expert advisory boards and given lectures for Teva Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Mylan and received unrestricted research grants from Mylan, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mundipharma International, GlaxoSmithKline, and Viatris. JB has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. MH declares grants and other advisory board fees made to his institutional employer from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. KK received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, WebMD. His department has received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis and NuvoAir. NP has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, Abbvie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. PEP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures/webinars at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. TP declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. CR received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. MS has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. M-JT has received sponsorship to attend or speak at conferences, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Shionogi and Orient EuroPharma. CU reports personal fees for talks, participation in advisory boards etc. from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MA-A has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences KFAS. AA has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. ABe is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LBu is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. VC is an employee of Optimum Patient Care OPC. OPC is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. BC declares grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. KF is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global OPCG, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LH has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; he has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, and GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; he is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. RH is an employee for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. PK reports personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Zentiva, outside the submitted work. RM is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. TN received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. LP received research grants and lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Grifols. DC has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca. FS reports consultancy work for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi - Advisory board, received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Amgen, Teva and research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. MW reports grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. ABo has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. GB has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. He is a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD Merck sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LC has received speaker and consultancy fees and conference expenses from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and Menarini. ED declares grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. JF reports grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis. Personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and Teva. FH declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, TEVA, GSK, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. DJ has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. MK reports grant support from AstraZeneca, and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital Singapore General Hospital from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. LL has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Sanofi. NM is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. AM-G is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. PHwP has received honoraria for talks and advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. AP has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. PHP has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LP-d-L reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. MP declares personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. LR received fees as a speaker from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. IS has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. CT-D has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols and Novartis. EW has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. RC has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva. He is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence and prediction of exacerbations. PG has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. EH declares personal fees for advisory boards participation and/or speaker activities from: Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes-Greer, Circassia, Bosch, Celltrion-Healthcare, Chiesi, and Almirall. JM reports speaker fees, grants or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini and Noucor. D-WP received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. FP reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from: Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. SS declares research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. C-CS has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Galapagos, Shionogi, Aridis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Insmed, United Therapeutics, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Areteia Therapeutics, Meiji, and Horizon Therapeutics. CT has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Novartis, for unrelated projects. TT is an advisory Board Member for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Mundipharma, and Janssen. Honoraria were received for these advisory boards. Honoraria were received for speaking at CMEs for AstraZeneca in the past. Conference sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Norvatis, Mundipharma and MSD. Research grants from Merck Serono Concor Study, MSD Apbord study. LBj has in the last three years received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. GWC has received research grants, as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. TI received speaker bureau fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. LJ-M has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. DP has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd Australia and UK and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd Singapore; 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Porsbjerg, Townend, Bergeron, Christoff, Katsoulotos, Larenas-Linnemann, Tran, Al-Lehebi, Bosnic-Anticevich, Busby, Hew, Kostikas, Papadopoulos, Pfeffer, Popov, Rhee, Sadatsafavi, Tsai, Ulrik, Al-Ahmad, Altraja, Beastall, Bulathsinhala, Carter, Cosio, Fletton, Hansen, Heaney, Hubbard, Kuna, Murray, Nagano, Pini, Cano Rosales, Schleich, Wechsler, Amaral, Bourdin, Brusselle, Chen, Chung, Denton, Fonseca, Hoyte, Jackson, Katial, Kirenga, Koh, Ławkiedraj, Lehtimäki, Liew, Mahboub, Martin, Menzies-Gow, Pang, Papaioannou, Patel, Perez-De-Llano, Peters, Ricciardi, Rodríguez-Cáceres, Solarte, Tay, Torres-Duque, Wang, Zappa, Abisheganaden, Assing, Costello, Gibson, Heffler, Máspero, Nicola, Perng (Steve), Puggioni, Salvi, Sheu, Sirena, Taillé, Tan, Bjermer, Canonica, Iwanaga, Jiménez-Maldonado, Taube, Brussino and Price.)

Background: Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches., Methods: This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality., Results: There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis., Conclusions: Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised., (© 2024. The Author(s).)