Outcomes Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Severe Pneumonia and Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure From SARS-CoV-2 and Other Etiologies.

Importance: Early observations suggested that COVID-19 pneumonia had a higher mortality rate than other causes of pneumonia. Objective: To compare outcomes between mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia due to COVID-19 (March 2020 to June 2021) and other etiologies (July 2016 to December 2019). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins Healthcare System among adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation in the first 2 weeks of hospitalization. Clinical, laboratory, and mechanical ventilation data were extracted from admission to hospital discharge or death. Exposures: Pneumonia due to COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to liberation from mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, static respiratory system compliance, and ventilatory ratio. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, proportional hazards regression, and doubly robust regression were used in propensity score-matched sets to compare clinical outcomes. Results: Overall, 719 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 442 [61.5%] were male; 460 [64.0%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 253 [35.2%] were White) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and 1127 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [15.8] years; 586 [52.0%] were male; 459 [40.7%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 655 [58.1%] were White) with severe non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In unadjusted analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.41), longer time on mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), and lower compliance (32.0 vs 28.4 mL/kg PBW/cm H2O; P < .001) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In propensity score-matched analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were equally likely to die within 90 days as those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.35; P = .85), had similar respiratory system compliance (mean difference, 1.82 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI, -1.53 to 5.17 mL/cm H2O; P = .28) and ventilatory ratio (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.11; P = .52), but had lower rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had somewhat lower rates of being discharged from the hospital alive at 90 days (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01) than those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia; however, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia had similar mortality rates as patients with other causes of severe pneumonia but longer times to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation use in COVID-19 pneumonia should follow the same evidence-based guidelines as for any pneumonia.

Home-Based Respiratory Physiotherapy and Telephone-Based Psychological Support for COVID-19 Survivors in Peru: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both pulmonary and mental health are affected following hospitalization for COVID-19 pneumonia. Pulmonary rehabilitation therapy has demonstrated benefits in improving mental health, but no validated combined programs that include mental health have been proposed. OBJECTIVE: This article presents the design of a trial that aimed to assess whether the participation in a combined rehabilitation program that includes home-based respiratory physiotherapy and telephone-based psychological support is associated with a greater improvement of pulmonary and mental health outcomes 7-12 weeks after COVID-19 hospitalization discharge compared with posthospital usual care provided by a public Peruvian hospital. METHODS: WAYRA (the word for air in the Quechua language) was an open-label, unblinded, two-arm randomized controlled trial. We recruited 108 participants aged 18-75 years who were discharged from the hospital after COVID-19 pneumonia that required >6 liters/minute of supplemental oxygen during treatment. Participants were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive the combined rehabilitation program or usual posthospital care provided by a public Peruvian hospital. The intervention consisted of 12 at-home respiratory rehabilitation sessions and 6 telephone-based psychological sessions. The primary outcome was the 6-minute walk distance. Secondary outcomes included lung function, mental health status (depression, anxiety, and trauma), and quality of life. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (before randomization) and at 7 and 12 weeks after hospital discharge to assess the difference between arms. RESULTS: This study was funded by the Peruvian National Council of Science Technology and Technology Innovation in July 2020. Ethics approval was obtained on September 2, 2020. Recruitment and data collection occurred between October 2020 and June 2021. Results are expected to be published by the end of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: WAYRA was the first randomized controlled trial evaluating combined pulmonary-mental health rehabilitation for hospitalized COVID-19 survivors in resource-limited settings, potentially providing a foundation for the cost-effective scale-up of similar multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04649736; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04649736. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/36001.

Comparing Prone Positioning Use in COVID-19 Versus Historic Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

IMPORTANCE: Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020–2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018–2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency. RESULTS: Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7–57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6;p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0;p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.

Living at High Altitude and COVID-19 Mortality in Peru.

Nicolaou, Laura, Anne Steinberg, Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, Stella Hartinger, Andres G. Lescano, and William Checkley. Living at high altitude and COVID-19 mortality in Peru. High Alt Med Biol. 23:146-158, 2022. Background: Previous studies have reported a lower severity of COVID-19 infections at higher altitudes; however, this association may be confounded by various factors. We examined the association between living at altitude and COVID-19 mortality in Peru adjusting for population density, prevalence of comorbidities, indicators of socioeconomic status, and health care access. Methods: Utilizing administrative data across 196 provinces located at varying altitudes (sea level to 4,373 m), we conducted a two-stage analysis of COVID-19 deaths between March 19 and December 31, 2020, Peru's first wave. We first calculated cumulative daily mortality rate for each province and fit lognormal cumulative distribution functions to estimate total mortality rate, and start, peak, and duration of the first wave. We then regressed province-level total mortality rate, start, peak, and duration of the first wave as a function of altitude adjusted for confounders. Results: There were 93,528 recorded deaths from COVID-19 (mean age 66.5 years, 64.5% male) for a cumulative mortality of 272.5 per 100,000 population between March 19 and December 31, 2020. We did not find a consistent monotonic trend between living at higher altitudes and estimated total mortality rate for provinces at 500 - 1,000 m (-12.1 deaths per 100,000 population per 100 m, 95% familywise confidence interval -27.7 to 3.5) or > 1,000 m (-0.3, -2.7 to 2.0). We also did not find consistent monotonic trends for the start, peak, and duration of the first wave beyond the first 500 m. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that living at high altitude may not confer a lower risk of death from COVID-19.

The Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: High-flow nasal cannula is widely used in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019, yet data regarding its effectiveness is lacking. More evidence is needed to guide patient selection, timing of high-flow nasal cannula initiation, and resource allocation. We aimed to assess time to discharge and time to death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 in patients treated with high-flow nasal cannula compared with matched controls. We also evaluated the ability of the respiratory rate-oxygenation ratio to predict progression to invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Time-dependent propensity score matching was used to create pairs of individuals who were then analyzed in a Cox proportional-hazards regression model to estimate high-flow nasal cannula's effect on time to discharge and time to death. A secondary analysis excluded high-flow nasal cannula patients intubated within 6 hours of admission. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to assess risk of invasive mechanical ventilation among high-flow nasal cannula patients stratified by respiratory rate-oxygenation. SETTING: The five hospitals of the Johns Hopkins Health System. PATIENTS: All patients who were admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: High-flow nasal cannula was associated with longer median time to discharge: 10.6 days (interquartile range, 7.1-15.8 d) versus 7.8 days (interquartile range, 4.9-12.1 d). Respiratory rate-oxygenation index performed poorly in predicting ventilation or death. In the primary analysis, there was no significant association between high-flow nasal cannula and hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57-1.09). Excluding patients intubated within 6 hours of admission, high-flow nasal cannula was associated with reduced hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Among unselected patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in hazard of death. However, in patients not mechanically ventilated within 6 hours of admission, high-flow nasal cannula was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of death.

A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .

Pragmatic Recommendations for Safety while Caring for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Infection prevention and control measures to control the spread of COVID-19 are challenging to implement in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is compounded by the fact that most recommendations are based on evidence that mainly originates in high-income countries. There are often availability, affordability, and feasibility barriers to applying such recommendations in LMICs, and therefore, there is a need for developing recommendations that are achievable in LMICs. We used a modified version of the GRADE method to select important questions, searched the literature for relevant evidence, and formulated pragmatic recommendations for safety while caring for patients with COVID-19 in LMICs. We selected five questions related to safety, covering minimal requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE), recommendations for extended use and reuse of PPE, restriction on the number of times healthcare workers enter patients' rooms, hand hygiene, and environmental ventilation. We formulated 21 recommendations that are feasible and affordable in LMICs.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Therapeutics of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are currently limited, but numerous randomized controlled trials are being completed, and many are on the way. For COVID-19 patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we recommend against using remdesivir outside of a clinical trial. We recommend against using hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin or lopinavir-ritonavir. We suggest empiric antimicrobial treatment for likely coinfecting pathogens if an alternative infectious cause is likely. We suggest close monitoring without additional empiric antimicrobials if there are no clinical or laboratory signs of other infections. We recommend using oral or intravenous low-dose dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 disease who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation. We recommend against using dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen. We recommend using alternate equivalent doses of steroids in the event that dexamethasone is unavailable. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock requiring vasopressor support. We recommend against the use of convalescent plasma and interleukin-6 inhibitors, such as tocilizumab, for the treatment of COVID-19 in LMICs outside of clinical trials.

A Risk Assessment Tool for Resumption of Research Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential aerosolization while performing the activity. One of of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities which can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we can compare trial activities using the same criteria. This approach allows us to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our participants, local communities, and funders. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02944682).