ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has been associated with a significant burden to those who survive the acute phase. We aimed to describe the quality of life and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days after hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to a private hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2020 and April of 2021 were interviewed by telephone at 30 and 90 days after discharge to assess the quality of life and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. RESULTS: A total of 2,138 patients were included. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.8 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 9.0 (5.0-15.8) days. Between the two time points, depression increased from 3.1% to 7.2% (p < 0.001), anxiety increased from 3.2% to 6.2% (p < 0.001), and PTSD increased from 2.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). At least one physical symptom related to COVID-19 diagnosis persisted in 32% of patients at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence of physical symptoms was high even at 90 days after discharge. Although the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was low, these symptoms persisted for three months, with a significant increase between the time points. This finding indicates the need to identify at-risk patients so that they can be given an appropriate referral at discharge.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Quality of Life , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Depression/epidemiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the association between acute disease severity and 1-year quality of life in patients discharged after hospitalisation due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study nested in 5 randomised clinical trials between March 2020 and March 2022 at 84 sites in Brazil. Adult post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the utility score of EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and new disabilities in instrumental activities of daily living. Adjusted generalised estimating equations were used to assess the association between outcomes and acute disease severity according to the highest level on a modified ordinal scale during hospital stay (2: no oxygen therapy; 3: oxygen by mask or nasal prongs; 4: high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation; 5: mechanical ventilation). RESULTS: 1508 COVID-19 survivors were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 1156 participants. At 1 year, compared with severity score 2, severity score 5 was associated with lower EQ-5D-3L utility scores (0.7 vs 0.84; adjusted difference, - 0.1 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.06]); and worse results for all-cause mortality (7.9% vs 1.2%; adjusted difference, 7.1% [95% CI 2.5%-11.8%]), major cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted difference, 2.6% [95% CI 0.6%-4.6%]), and new disabilities (40.4% vs 23.5%; adjusted difference, 15.5% [95% CI 8.5%-22.5]). Severity scores 3 and 4 did not differ consistently from score 2. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients who needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation have lower 1-year quality of life than COVID-19 patients who did not need mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases , Adult , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Quality of Life , Activities of Daily Living , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Hospitalization , Patient AcuityABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.
OBJETIVO: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). CONCLUSÃO: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Propensity Score , COVID-19/complications , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Lung , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory MechanicsABSTRACT
Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.
Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04468087.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Atazanavir Sulfate , Brazil , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Sofosbuvir , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.
OBJETIVOS: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. RESULTADOS: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Thromboembolism , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Brazil , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Oxygen , COVID-19 SerotherapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of burnout syndrome among intensive care physicians working in a tertiary private hospital as well as their perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their life. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Intensive care units dedicated to the care of COVID-19 in Hospital Sirio-Libanes, Sao Paulo, Southeastern part of Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care physicians. INTERVENTIONS: Each participant received an envelope with a questionnaire composed of demographic and occupational variables, information related to their personal and professional experiences facing the COVID-19 pandemic and the Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was to assess the prevalence of burnout syndrome among physicians working in an intensive care unit dedicated to the care of COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 51 from the universe of 63 (82%) intensive care physicians participated in the study. Nineteen (37.2%) met the criteria for burnout syndrome. In the three domains that characterise burnout syndrome, we found a low level of personal achievement in 96.1% of physicians interviewed, a high level of depersonalisation in 51.0% and 51.0% with a high level of emotional exhaustion. Decision-making conflicts between the intensive care unit team and other attending physicians were frequent (50% of all conflicts). A third of the participants had been diagnosed with COVID-19, 22 (43.1%) reported having a family member infected and 8 (15.7%) lost someone close to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants felt that fear of infecting their loved ones was the aspect of their lives that changed most as compared with the prepandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout syndrome was frequent among intensive care unit physicians treating patients with COVID-19 in a large tertiary private hospital. Future studies should expand our results to other private and public hospitals and test strategies to promote intensive care unit physicians' mental health.
Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Physicians , Brazil/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , Burnout, Psychological/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Physicians/psychology , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several therapies have been used or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19, although their effectiveness and safety have not been properly evaluated. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations to support decisions about the drug treatment of outpatients with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A panel consisting of experts from different clinical fields, representatives of the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and methodologists (37 members in total) was responsible for preparing these guidelines. A rapid guideline development method was used, based on the adoption and/or adaptation of recommendations from existing international guidelines combined with additional structured searches for primary studies and new recommendations whenever necessary (GRADE-ADOLOPMENT). The rating of quality of evidence and the drafting of recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Ten technologies were evaluated, and 10 recommendations were prepared. Recommendations were made against the use of anticoagulants, azithromycin, budesonide, colchicine, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or combined with azithromycin, ivermectin, nitazoxanide, and convalescent plasma. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of monoclonal antibodies in outpatients, as their benefit is uncertain and their cost is high, with limitations of availability and implementation. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Recommendations are restricted to what should not be used, in order to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource savings by aboiding ineffective treatments.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Cardiology , Communicable Diseases , Emergency Medicine , Geriatrics , Azithromycin , Brazil , COVID-19/therapy , Community Medicine , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Outpatients , Vascular Surgical Procedures , COVID-19 SerotherapyABSTRACT
Sepsis is a global health emergency, which is caused by various sources of infection that lead to changes in gene expression, protein-coding, and metabolism. Advancements in "omics" technologies have provided valuable tools to unravel the mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of this disease. In this study, we performed shotgun mass spectrometry in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from septic patients (N=24) and healthy controls (N=9) and combined these results with two public microarray leukocytes datasets. Through combination of transcriptome and proteome profiling, we identified 170 co-differentially expressed genes/proteins. Among these, 122 genes/proteins displayed the same expression trend. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis revealed pathways related to lymphocyte functions with decreased status, and defense processes that were predicted to be strongly increased. Protein-protein interaction network analyses revealed two densely connected regions, which mainly included down-regulated genes/proteins that were related to the transcription of RNA, translation of proteins, and mitochondrial translation. Additionally, we identified one module comprising of up-regulated genes/proteins, which were mainly related to low-density neutrophils (LDNs). LDNs were reported in sepsis and in COVID-19. Changes in gene expression level were validated using quantitative real-time PCR in PBMCs from patients with sepsis. To further support that the source of the upregulated module of genes/proteins found in our results were derived from LDNs, we identified an increase of this population by flow cytometry in PBMC samples obtained from the same cohort of septic patients included in the proteomic analysis. This study provides new insights into a reprioritization of biological functions in response to sepsis that involved a transcriptional and translational shutdown of genes/proteins, with exception of a set of genes/proteins related to LDNs and host-defense system.
Subject(s)
Leukocytes, Mononuclear/metabolism , Neutrophils/metabolism , Sepsis/metabolism , Databases, Factual , Gene Expression Profiling , Gene Expression Regulation , Humans , Leukocytes, Mononuclear/cytology , Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells/cytology , Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells/metabolism , Neutrophils/cytology , Protein Interaction Maps , Proteomics , Sepsis/genetics , Sepsis/immunologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Daily multidisciplinary rounds (DMRs) consist of systematic patient-centred discussions aiming to establish joint therapeutic goals for the next 24 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) care. The aim of the present study protocol is to evaluate whether an intervention consisting of guided DMRs, supported by a remote specialist and audit/feedback on care performance will reduce ICU length of stay compared with a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised superiority trial including 30 ICUs in Brazil (15 intervention and 15 control), from August 2019 to June 2021. In a parallel assignment, ICUs are randomised to a complex-intervention composed by daily rounds carried out through Tele-ICU by a remote ICU physician; development of local quality indicators dashboards coupled with monthly meetings with local leadership; and dissemination of evidence-based clinical protocols versus usual care. Primary outcome is ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include classification of the unit according to the profiles defined by the standardised resource use and the standardised mortality rate, hospital mortality, incidence of healthcare-associated infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation or alert and calm, rate of patients under normoxaemia. All adult patients admitted after the beginning of the study in each participant ICU will be enrolled. Inclusion criteria (clusters): public Brazilian ICUs with a minimum of 8 ICU beds interested/committed to participating in the study. Exclusion criteria (clusters): units with fully established DMRs by an intensivist, specialised or step-down units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the coordinator centre, and by IRBs of each enrolled hospital/ICU. Statistical analysis protocol is being prepared for submission before the end of patient's enrolment. Results will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed journals and to each participating unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03920501; Pre-results.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telescopes , Adult , Brazil , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
INTRODUÇÃO: Os efeitos provocados pela COVID-19 em longo prazo são desconhecidos. O presente estudo tem como objetivo avaliar os fatores associados com a qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde e os desfechos em longo prazo em sobreviventes à hospitalização por COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Este será um estudo multicêntrico de coorte prospectivo, aninhado em cinco ensaios clínicos randomizados desenhados para avaliar os efeitos dos tratamentos específicos para COVID-19 em mais de 50 centros no Brasil. Pacientes adultos sobreviventes à hospitalização por infecção por SARS-CoV-2 comprovada ou suspeita serão seguidos por um período de 1 ano, por meio de entrevistas telefônicas estruturadas. O desfecho primário é o escore de utilidade para qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde após 1 ano, avaliado segundo o questionário EuroQol-5D3L. Os desfechos secundários incluirão mortalidade por todas as causas, eventos cardiovasculares graves, reospitalizações, retorno ao trabalho ou estudo, condição funcional física avaliada pelo instrumento Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dispneia avaliada segundo a escala de dispneia modificada do Medical Research Council, necessidade de suporte ventilatório em longo prazo, sintomas de ansiedade e depressão avaliados segundo a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, sintomas de transtorno de estresse pós-traumático avaliados pela ferramenta Impact of Event Scale-Revised e autoavaliação da condição de saúde, conforme a Escala Visual Analógica do EuroQol-5D3L. Serão utilizadas equações de estimativas generalizada para testar a associação entre cinco conjuntos de variáveis (1 - características demográficas, 2 - condição de saúde pré-morbidade, 3 - características da doença aguda, 4 - terapias específicas para COVID-19 recebidas e 5 - variáveis pós-alta atualizadas) e desfechos. ÉTICA E DISSEMINAÇÃO: O protocolo do estudo foi aprovado pelos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa de todas as instituições participantes. Os resultados serão disseminados por meio de conferências e periódicos revisados por pares.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Quality of Life , Adult , Brazil , COVID-19/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cause of Death , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Patient Readmission , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Return to Work , Sample Size , Survivors , TelephoneABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought significant challenges worldwide, with high mortality, increased use of hospital resources, and the collapse of healthcare systems. We aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients and assess the impact on the use of hospital resources and compare with critically ill medical patients without COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to a private ICU in Sao Paulo, Brazil from March to June 2020. We compared these patients with those admitted to the unit in the same period of the previous year. A total of 212 consecutive patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared with 185 medical patients from the previous year. Patients with COVID-19 were more frequently males (76% vs. 56%, p<0.001) and morbidly obese (7.5% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.027), and had lower SAPS 3 (49.65 (12.19) vs. 55.63 (11.94), p<0.001) and SOFA scores (3.78 (3.53) vs. 4.48 (3.11), p = 0.039). COVID-19 patients had a longer ICU stay (median of 7 vs. 3 days, p<0.001), longer duration of mechanical ventilation (median of 9 vs. 4 days, p = 0.003), and more frequent tracheostomies (10.8 vs. 1.1%, p<0.001). Survival rates until 28 days were not statistically different (91% vs. 85.4%, p = 0.111). After multivariable adjustment for age, gender, SAPS 3, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, COVID-19 remained not associated with survival at 28 days (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33-1.06, p = 0.076). Among patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, the observed mortality at 28-days was 16.2% in COVID-19 patients compared to 34.6% in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 required more hospital resources, including invasive and non-invasive ventilation, had a longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and a more prolonged ICU and hospital length of stay. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 28 and 60 days, suggesting that health systems preparedness be an important determinant of clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreads worldwide and is considered a pandemic. The most common manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease 2019 - COVID-19) is viral pneumonia with varying degrees of respiratory compromise and up to 40% of hospitalized patients might develop acute respiratory distress syndrome. Several clinical trials evaluated the role of corticosteroids in non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome with conflicting results. We designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of early intravenous dexamethasone administration on the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 28 days after randomization in adult patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to confirmed or probable COVID-19. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, stratified, multicenter, open-label, controlled trial including 350 patients with early-onset (less than 48 hours before randomization) moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, defined by the Berlin criteria, due to COVID-19. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment plus dexamethasone (Intervention Group) or standard treatment without dexamethasone (Control Group). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20mg intravenous once daily for 5 days, followed by dexamethasone 10mg IV once daily for additional 5 days or until intensive care unit discharge, whichever occurs first. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days within 28 days after randomization, defined as days alive and free from invasive mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality rates at day 28, evaluation of the clinical status at day 15 assessed with a 6-level ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation duration from randomization to day 28, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score evaluation at 48 hours, 72 hours and 7 days and intensive care unit -free days within 28.
OBJETIVO: A infecção causada pelo coronavírus da síndrome respiratória aguda grave 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disseminou-se por todo o mundo e foi categorizada como pandemia. As manifestações mais comuns da infecção pelo SARS-CoV-2 (doença pelo coronavírus 2019 - COVID-19) se referem a uma pneumonia viral com graus variáveis de comprometimento respiratório e até 40% dos pacientes hospitalizados, que podem desenvolver uma síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Diferentes ensaios clínicos avaliaram o papel dos corticosteroides na síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não relacionada com COVID-19, obtendo resultados conflitantes. Delineamos o presente estudo para avaliar a eficácia da administração endovenosa precoce de dexametasona no número de dias vivo e sem ventilação mecânica nos 28 dias após a randomização, em pacientes adultos com quadro moderado ou grave de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo causada por COVID-19 provável ou confirmada. MÉTODOS: Este é um ensaio pragmático, prospectivo, randomizado, estratificado, multicêntrico, aberto e controlado que incluirá 350 pacientes com quadro inicial (menos de 48 horas antes da randomização) de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada ou grave, definida segundo os critérios de Berlim, causada por COVID-19. Os pacientes elegíveis serão alocados de forma aleatória para tratamento padrão mais dexametasona (Grupo Intervenção) ou tratamento padrão sem dexametasona (Grupo Controle). Os pacientes no Grupo Intervenção receberão dexametasona 20mg por via endovenosa uma vez ao dia, por 5 dias, e, a seguir, dexametasona por via endovenosa 10mg ao dia por mais 5 dias, ou até receber alta da unidade de terapia intensiva, o que ocorrer antes. O desfecho primário será o número de dias livres de ventilação mecânica nos 28 dias após a randomização, definido como o número de dias vivo e livres de ventilação mecânica invasiva. Os desfechos secundários serão a taxa de mortalidade por todas as causas no dia 28, a condição clínica no dia 15 avaliada com utilização de uma escala ordinal de seis níveis, a duração da ventilação mecânica desde a randomização até o dia 28, a avaliação com o Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score após 48 horas, 72 horas e 7 dias, e o número de dias fora da unidade de terapia intensiva nos 28 dias após a randomização.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Time Factors , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Pro-inflammatory markers play a significant role in the disease severity of patients with COVID-19. Thus, anti-inflammatory therapies are attractive agents for potentially combating the uncontrolled inflammatory cascade in these patients. We designed a trial testing tocilizumab versus standard of care intending to improve the outcomes by inhibiting interleukin-6, an important inflammatory mediator in COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label multicentre randomized controlled trial will compare clinical outcomes of tocilizumab plus standard of care versus standard of care alone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. Two of the following four criteria are required for protocol enrolment: D-dimer > 1,000ng/mL; C reactive protein > 5mg/dL, ferritin > 300mg/dL, and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal. The primary objective will be to compare the clinical status on day 15, as measured by a 7-point ordinal scale applied in COVID-19 trials worldwide. The primary endpoint will be assessed by an ordinal logistic regression assuming proportional odds ratios adjusted for stratification variables (age and sex). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The TOCIBRAS protocol was approved by local and central (national) ethical committees in Brazil following current national and international guidelines/directives. Each participating center had the study protocol approved by their institutional review boards before initiating protocol enrolment. The data derived from this trial will be published regardless of the results. If proven active, this strategy could alleviate the consequences of the inflammatory response in COVID-19 patients and improve their clinical outcomes.
INTRODUÇÃO: Os marcadores pró-inflamatórios desempenham papel importante na severidade de pacientes com COVID-19. Assim, terapêuticas anti-inflamatórias são agentes interessantes para potencialmente combater a cascata inflamatória descontrolada em tais pacientes. Delineamos um ensaio para testar tocilizumabe em comparação com o tratamento padrão, tendo como objetivo melhorar os desfechos por meio da inibição da interleucina 6, um importante mediador inflamatório na COVID-19. MÉTODOS E ANÁLISES: Este será um estudo aberto multicêntrico, randomizado e controlado, que comparará os desfechos de pacientes tratados com tocilizumabe mais tratamento padrão com o tratamento padrão isoladamente em pacientes com COVID-19 moderada a grave. Como critérios de inclusão, serão exigidos dois dos quatro critérios a seguir: dosagens de dímero D acima de 1.000ng/mL, proteína C-reativa acima de 5mg/dL, ferritina acima de 300mg/dL e desidrogenase lática acima do limite superior do normal. O objetivo primário será comparar a condição clínica no dia 15, conforme avaliação por meio de escala ordinal de 7 pontos aplicada nos estudos de COVID-19 em todo o mundo. O desfecho primário será avaliado por regressão logística ordinal assumindo razões de propensão proporcionais ajustadas pelas variáveis de estratificação (idade e sexo). ÉTICA E DISSEMINAÇÃO: O TOCIBRAS foi aprovado pelos comitês de ética locais e central (nacional) do Brasil em conformidade com as atuais diretrizes e orientações nacionais e internacionais. Cada centro participante obteve aprovação do estudo por parte de seu comitê de ética em pesquisa, antes de iniciar as inscrições no protocolo. Os dados derivados deste ensaio serão publicados independentemente de seus resultados. Se tiver sua efetividade comprovada, esta estratégia terapêutica poderá aliviar as consequências da resposta inflamatória na COVID-19 e melhorar os resultados clínicos.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Brazil , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Humans , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
Importance: Effective therapies for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed, and clinical trial data have demonstrated that low-dose dexamethasone reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required respiratory support. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective meta-analysis that pooled data from 7 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in 1703 critically ill patients with COVID-19. The trials were conducted in 12 countries from February 26, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and the date of final follow-up was July 6, 2020. Pooled data were aggregated from the individual trials, overall, and in predefined subgroups. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect meta-analysis of overall mortality, with the association between the intervention and mortality quantified using odds ratios (ORs). Random-effects meta-analyses also were conducted (with the Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and the Hartung-Knapp adjustment) and an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effect analysis using risk ratios. Exposures: Patients had been randomized to receive systemic dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone (678 patients) or to receive usual care or placebo (1025 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. A secondary outcome was investigator-defined serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1703 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 52-68 years]; 488 [29%] women) were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as "low" for 6 of the 7 mortality results and as "some concerns" in 1 trial because of the randomization method. Five trials reported mortality at 28 days, 1 trial at 21 days, and 1 trial at 30 days. There were 222 deaths among the 678 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 425 deaths among the 1025 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82]; P < .001 based on a fixed-effect meta-analysis). There was little inconsistency between the trial results (I2 = 15.6%; P = .31 for heterogeneity) and the summary OR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.01; P = .053) based on the random-effects meta-analysis. The fixed-effect summary OR for the association with mortality was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; P < .001) for dexamethasone compared with usual care or placebo (3 trials, 1282 patients, and 527 deaths), the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.43-1.12; P = .13) for hydrocortisone (3 trials, 374 patients, and 94 deaths), and the OR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.29-2.87; P = .87) for methylprednisolone (1 trial, 47 patients, and 26 deaths). Among the 6 trials that reported serious adverse events, 64 events occurred among 354 patients randomized to corticosteroids and 80 events occurred among 342 patients randomized to usual care or placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of critically ill patients with COVID-19, administration of systemic corticosteroids, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Critical Illness , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To examine whether the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization varies between subgroups related to treatment characteristics, disease severity at the time of randomization, patient characteristics, or risk of bias. To examine the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on serious adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Both placebo-controlled and open-label trials are eligible. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised, critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention groups will have received therapeutic doses of a steroid (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone) with IV or oral administration immediately after randomization. The comparator groups will have received standard of care or usual care or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME: All-cause mortality up to 28 days after randomization. SEARCH METHODS: Systematic searching of clinicaltrials.gov , EudraCT, the WHO ISRCTN registry, and the Chinese clinical trials registry. Additionally, research and WHO networks will be asked for relevant trials. RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENTS: These will be based on the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and will use structured information provided by the trial investigators on a form designed for this prospective meta-analysis. We will use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Trial investigators will provide data on the numbers of participants who did and did not experience each outcome according to intervention group, overall and in specified subgroups. We will conduct fixed-effect (primary analysis) and random-effects (Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and Hartung-Knapp adjustment) meta-analyses. We will quantify inconsistency in effects between trials using I2 statistics. Evidence for subgroup effects will be quantified by ratios of odds ratios comparing effects in the subgroups, and corresponding interaction p-values. Comparisons between subgroups defined by trial characteristics will be made using random-effects meta-regression. Comparisons between subgroups defined by patient characteristics will be made by estimating trial-specific ratios of odds ratios comparing intervention effects between subgroups then combining these using random-effects meta-analysis. Steroid interventions will be classified as high or low dose according to whether the dose is greater or less than or equal to 400 mg hydrocortisone per day or equivalent. We will use network meta-analysis methods to make comparisons between the effects of high and low dose steroid interventions (because one trial randomized participants to both low and high dose steroid arms). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197242 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol for this prospective meta-analysis is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). To expedite dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol for the systematic review.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19;for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients;therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.