Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Use in Subjects With COVID-19 ARDS at High Altitudes: Clinical Presentation and Prognostic Factors.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduces the need for intubation in adult subject with acute respiratory failure. Changes in hypobaric hypoxemia have not been studied for subject with an HFNC in ICUs at altitudes > 2,600 m above sea level. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of HFNC treatment in subjects with COVID-19 at high altitudes. We hypothesized that progressive hypoxemia and the increase in breathing frequency associated with COVID-19 in high altitudes affect the success of HFNC therapy and may also influence the performance of the traditionally used predictors of success and failure. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of subjects >18 y with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring HFNC who were admitted to the ICU. Subjects were followed up during the 28 d of HFNC treatment or until failure. RESULTS: One hundred and eight subjects were enrolled. At admission to the ICU, FIO2 delivery between 0.5-0.8 (odds ratio 0.38 [95% CI 0.17-0.84]) was associated with a better response to HFNC therapy than oxygen delivery on admission between 0.8-1.0 (odds ratio 3.58 [95% CI 1.56-8.22]). This relationship continued during follow-ups at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h, with a progressive increase in the risk of failure (odds ratio 24 h 13.99 [95% CI 4.32-45.26]). A new cutoff for the ratio of oxygen saturation (ROX) index (ROX ≥ 4.88) after 24 h of HFNC administration was demonstrated to be the best predictor of success (odds ratio 11.0 [95% CI 3.3-47.0]). CONCLUSIONS: High-altitude subjects treated with HFNC for COVID-19 showed a high risk of respiratory failure and progressive hypoxemia when FIO2 requirements were > 0.8 after 24 h of treatment. In these subjects, personalized management should include continuous monitoring of individual clinical conditions (such as oxygenation indices, with cutoffs adapted to those corresponding to high-altitude cities).

Usefulness of Inhaled Sedation in Patients With Severe ARDS Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Sedation in intensive care is fundamental for optimizing clinical outcomes. For many years the world has been facing high rates of opioid use, and to combat the increasing opioid addiction plans at both national and international level have been implemented.1 The COVID-19 pandemic posed a major challenge for health systems and also increased the use of sedatives and opioid analgesia for prolonged periods of time, and at high doses, in a significant proportion of patients. In our institutions, the shortage of many drugs for intravenous (IV) analgosedation forces us to alternatives to replace out-of-stock drugs or to seek sedation goals, which are difficult to obtain with traditional drugs at high doses.2 METHODS: This was an analytical retrospective cohort study evaluating the follow-up of subjects with inclusion criteria from ICU admission to discharge (alive or dead). Five end points were measured: need for high-dose opioids (≥ 200 µg/h), comparison of inhaled versus IV sedation of opioid analgesic doses, midazolam dose, need for muscle relaxant, and risk of delirium. RESULTS: A total of 283 subjects were included in the study, of whom 230 were administered IV sedation and 53 inhaled sedation. In the inhaled sedation group, the relative risks (RRs) were 0.5 (95% CI 0.4-0.8, P = .045) for need of high-dose fentanyl, 0.3 (95% CI 0.20-0.45, P < .001) for need of muscle relaxant, and 0.8 (95% CI 0.61-1.15, P = .25) for risk of delirium. The median difference of fentanyl dose between the inhaled sedation and IV sedation groups was 61 µg/h or 1,200 µg/d (2.2 ampules/d, P < .001), and that of midazolam dose was 5.7 mg/h. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled sedation was associated with lower doses of opioids, benzodiazepines, and muscle relaxants compared to IV sedation. This therapy should be considered as an alternative in critically ill patients requiring prolonged ventilatory support and where IV sedation is not possible, always under adequate supervision of ICU staff.

Monkeypox: what do dental professionals need to know?

Infection control is critical for the safe delivery of dental care. Infection control practices must be responsive to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases and outbreaks, as was clearly seen during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. An emerging global outbreak of the monkeypox virus has again raised potential challenges for infection control in dentistry. Monkeypox is an infectious disease, characterised by a rash affecting the skin and soft tissues, including the oral cavity. Previously, cases were mostly seen following contact with infected animals in Central and West Africa, with limited human-to-human transmission within and outside of these areas. However, since May 2022, sustained human-to-human transmission has occurred globally. Monkeypox can be transmitted via close contact with an infected person, contaminated objects and surfaces, or by droplets and possibly aerosols, which is therefore of potential importance to dental settings. This article discusses the relevance of monkeypox to dental professionals, the typical presentation of the disease, its potential impact on infection prevention and control practices and the delivery of dental services. The current monkeypox outbreak highlights the need for a more sustained programme of research into dental infection control that can provide a solid evidence base to underpin preparedness planning for future outbreaks and pandemics.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Colombia, 2020: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to cause very high morbidity and mortality throughout Latin American countries. However, few population-based seroprevalence surveys have been conducted to quantify attack rates and characterize drivers of transmission. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study to assess the seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in ten cities in Colombia between September and December 2020. The study involved multi-stage cluster sampling at each city. Participants provided a serum sample and answered a demographic and risk factor questionnaire. Prior infection by SARS-CoV-2 was ascertained using the "SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) Advia Centaur - Siemens" chemiluminescence assay. FINDINGS: A total of 17863 participants from 7320 households participated in the study. Seroprevalence varied substantially between cities, ranging from 26% (95%CI 23-29 %) in Medellín to 68% (95%CI 62-74 %) in Guapi. There were no differences in seroprevalence by sex, but seropositivity was higher in certain ethnic groups. There was substantial heterogeneity in seroprevalence within cities, driven to a large extent by a strong association between socioeconomic stratum and seropositivity. INTERPRETATION: Colombia has been one of the Latin American countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study documented very high attack rates in several Colombian cities by the end of 2020 and identified key drivers of heterogeneities including ethnicity and socioeconomic stratum. Few studies of seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 have been conducted in Latin America, and therefore this study contributes to the fundamental understanding of the pandemic in the region. FUNDING: The study was sponsored by, Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología e Innovación -CT361/2020, Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social, Fundación Universitaria del Norte, Imperial College of London, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Sede Medellín), Universidad de Córdoba, California University, Unidad Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo, Centro de Atención y Diagnóstico de Enfermedades Infecciosas -CDI-, Centro Internacional de Entrenamiento e Investigaciones Médicas -CIDEIM-, Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística - DANE, Fondo Nacional de Turismo -FONTUR-, Secretarías de Salud Departamentales, Distritales y Municipales and Instituto Nacional de Salud.

CariesCare International adapted for the pandemic in children: Caries OUT multicentre single-group interventional study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this "Caries OUT" study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. METHODS: In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children's oral-health behaviour change, parents' and dentists' process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3-5 and 6-8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments' time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5-5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child's CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents' and dentists' process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. DISCUSSION: The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h . Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021.