Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antihyperglycemic Prescriptions for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Canada: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes is a major public health problem in Canada and requires multifactorial, consistent clinical management. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased challenges in the management of many chronic ailments, including diabetes. Diabetes was associated with a higher risk of severe illness in the context of COVID-19. Pandemic restrictions also impacted diabetes care continuity, which may have contributed to an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of prescription patterns of antihyperglycemic medications claimed by individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using the IQVIA Canada Longitudinal Prescription Claims database. The study period was from March 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021. The study outcomes are described on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis and overall, and by medication, medication class, and insurance coverage type. "New-to-molecule" patients were defined as those claiming a medication during the analysis period that they had no history of claiming in the database. Adults with at least 1 year of prescription history available and claiming their first prescription for an antihyperglycemic drug during the analysis period were classified as newly diagnosed with T2D. RESULTS: A similar number of people had at least 1 non-insulin antihyperglycemic prescription during the baseline, prepandemic, and pandemic periods in Canada (1,778,155, 1,822,403, and 1,797,272, respectively). However, the number of people initiating newer antihyperglycemic medications decreased at the beginning of the pandemic, in contrast to older medications, which remained consistent across the pandemic period. The number of people diagnosed with T2D decreased in the early months of the pandemic but recovered by October 2020. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 epidemic in Canada impacted clinical care for at-risk Canadians, with fewer being prescribed newer antihyperglycemic drugs and a reduction in the number of diagnoses of T2D.

Impact of CytoSorb Hemoadsorption on Sedation Requirements in Patients With Severe COVID-19 on Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb has been used as an adjunct in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure. It remains unknown if CytoSorb hemoadsorption will alter sedative and analgesic dosing in critically ill patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). We conducted a retrospective review of patients with severe COVID-19 requiring VV-ECMO for respiratory support. Patients who were enrolled in a clinical study of CytoSorb were compared with patients on VV-ECMO alone. Data were collected for the 72-hour CytoSorb therapy and an additional 72 hours post-CytoSorb, or a corresponding control time period. Sedative and analgesic doses were totaled for each day and converted to midazolam or fentanyl equivalents, respectively. The primary endpoint, change in sedative and analgesic requirements over time, were compared using a two-way mixed analysis of variance. Of the 30 patients cannulated for VV-ECMO for COVID-19, 4 were excluded, leaving 8 patients in the CytoSorb arm and 18 in the Control. There was no effect of CytoSorb therapy on midazolam equivalents over the 72-hour therapy (p = 0.71) or the 72 hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.11). In contrast, there was a significant effect of CytoSorb therapy on fentanyl equivalents over the first 72 hours (p = 0.01), but this was not consistent over the 72-hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.23). CytoSorb therapy led to significant increases in analgesic requirements without impacting sedative requirements. Further research is needed to define the relevance of CytoSorb hemoadsorption on critical care pharmacotherapy.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Care and Clinical Parameters in a Primary Care Setting in Ontario, Canada: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes requires ongoing monitoring and care to prevent long-term adverse health outcomes. In Canada, quarantine restrictions were put into place to address the coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in March 2020. Primary care diabetes clinics limited their in-person services and were advised to manage type 2 diabetes (T2D) through virtual visits and reduce the frequency of routine diabetes-related lab tests and screening. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used de-identified patient records from a primary care electronic medical records database in Ontario, Canada, to identify people with T2D who had at least 1 health-care touchpoint between March 1, 2018, and February 28, 2021. Outcomes were described on a monthly or yearly basis: 1) number of people with primary care visits (in-person vs virtual); 2) number of people with referrals; 3) number of people with each of the vital/lab measures; and 4) results of the vital/lab measures. RESULTS: A total of 16,845 individuals with T2D were included. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, the COVID-19 period had a 16.8% reduction in the T2D population utilizing any primary care and an increase of 330.4% in the number of people with at least 1 virtual visit. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, fewer people had vital/lab measures in the pandemic period. However, among the people with the test results available, the average values for all tests were similar in the pre- and pandemic periods. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to understand the impact of the reduction of in-person clinical care on the entire population with T2D.

Efficacy of proning in acute respiratory distress syndrome on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Objectives: Proning patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been associated with increased survival, although few data exist evaluating the safety and feasibility of proning patients with ARDS on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of all patients with ARDS placed on ECMO between March 1 and May 31, 2020, was performed. All proning events were evaluated for complications, as well as change in compliance, sweep, oxygenation, and flow. The primary outcome of this study was the rate major morbidity associated with proning while on ECMO. Results: In total, 30 patients were placed on ECMO for ARDS, with 12 patients (40%) proned while on ECMO. A total of 83 proning episodes occurred, with a median of 7 per patient (interquartile range, 3-9). No ECMO cannula-associated bleeding, cannula displacement, or endotracheal tune dislodgements occurred (0%). Oropharyngeal bleeding occurred twice (50%). Four patients were proned with chest tubes in place, and none had complications (0%). Lung compliance improved after proning in 70 events (84%), from a mean of 15.4 mL/mm Hg preproning to 20.6 mL/mm Hg postproning (P < .0001). Sweep requirement decreased in 36 events (43%). Oxygenation improved in 63 events (76%), from a mean partial pressure of oxygen of 86 preproning to 103 postproning (P < .0001). Mean ECMO flow was unchanged. Conclusions: Proning in patients with ARDS on ECMO is safe with an associated improvement in lung mechanics. With careful planning and coordination, these data support the practice of appropriately proning patients with severe ARDS, even if they are on ECMO.

Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of the COVID-Pandemic on Diabetes Management in Primary Care in Ontario, Canada

Background: This study describes the impact of the pandemic on the management of people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D) in a primary care network with existing virtual care capabilities in Ontario, Canada. Methods: Using de-identified primary care electronic medical records, PwT2D who had at least one healthcare touchpoint between March 1, 2018 and February 28, 2021 were analyzed by time period (baseline: 2018-19, pre-COVID-19: 2019-20, COVID-19: 2020-21) . The primary outcome measures include the number of people with at least one visit, number of people with vital measurements or lab tests, and the vital or lab results. Results: The three time periods had a similar average age and gender distribution (Table 1) . Compared to the pre-COVID-period, fewer people had any healthcare touchpoint (17% reduction) . In-person visits were reduced while more people had virtual visits. Fewer people had test results recorded during the COVID-vs. two pre-COVID-time periods, however, average results were similar across all three time periods. Conclusion: Our study described the immediate impact of the COVID-pandemic on patterns of primary care for PwT2D. While the total number people getting tests remains below pre-pandemic levels, of those who sought care, the mean A1c, LDL-c and eGFR were comparable across the three time periods.

The Use of High-Dose Corticosteroids Versus Low-Dose Corticosteroids With and Without Tocilizumab in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids and tocilizumab have been shown to improve survival in patients who require supplemental oxygen from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The optimal dose of immunosuppression for the treatment of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose corticosteroids with or without tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring mechanical ventilation who received high- versus low-dose corticosteroids with or without tocilizumab. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Safety outcomes included infections and incidence of hyperglycemia. RESULTS: In this cohort, 110 (54%) and 95 (46%) patients received high-dose (≥10 mg dexamethasone equivalent) and low-dose (<10 mg dexamethasone equivalent) corticosteroids for more than 3 consecutive days, respectively. Thirty-five patients (32%) in the high-dose group and 33 patients (35%) in the low-dose group survived to hospital discharge (P = 0.85). There was no difference in 28-day mortality in patients who received high-dose corticosteroids without tocilizumab compared with those who received low-dose corticosteroids with tocilizumab (n = 38/82, 46% vs n = 19/40, 48% P = 0.99); however, there was a higher mortality if patients received low-dose corticosteroids without tocilizumab (n = 39/55, 71%, P = 0.01). The highest rate of a bacterial pneumonia was in patients who received high-dose corticosteroids with tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation, we found no difference in high- versus low-dose corticosteroids with regard to survival to hospital discharge. However, patients receiving only low-dose corticosteroids without tocilizumab did worse than the other groups. Larger prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal immunosuppression dosing strategy in this patient population.

Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Thrombosis at hospital presentation in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to better characterize the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) most at risk of severe, outpatient thrombosis by defining the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with arterial or venous thrombosis diagnosed at admission. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. We found a shift in the proportions of thrombosis subtypes from 2019 to 2020, with declines in ST-segment myocardial infarction (from 22.0% to 10.1% of thrombotic events) and stroke (from 48.6% to 37.2%) and an increase in venous thromboembolism (from 29.4% to 52.7%). The patients with COVID-19-associated thrombosis were younger (age, 58 years vs 64 years; P = .043) and were less frequently women (31.3% vs 43.9%; P = .16). However, no differences were found in the body mass index or major comorbidities between those with and without COVID-19. COVID-19-associated thrombosis correlated with greater mortality (15.2% vs 4.3%; P = .016). The biometric profile of patients admitted with COVID-19-associated thrombosis compared with regular thrombosis showed significant changes in the complete blood count, liver function test results, D-dimer levels, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and coagulation panels. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients with COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization had increased mortality compared with outpatients without COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization. Given the significantly higher inflammatory marker levels, it is possible this is related to different mechanisms of thrombotic disease in these patients. The inflammation could be a therapeutic target to reduce the risk, or aid in the treatment, of thrombosis. We call for more studies elucidating the role that immunothrombosis might be playing in patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Prevalence and Outcomes of D-Dimer Elevation in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of D-dimer elevation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization, trajectory of D-dimer levels during hospitalization, and its association with clinical outcomes. Approach and Results: Consecutive adults admitted to a large New York City hospital system with a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) between March 1, 2020 and April 8, 2020 were identified. Elevated D-dimer was defined by the laboratory-specific upper limit of normal (>230 ng/mL). Outcomes included critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice, or death), thrombotic events, acute kidney injury, and death during admission. Among 2377 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and ≥1 D-dimer measurement, 1823 (76%) had elevated D-dimer at presentation. Patients with elevated presenting baseline D-dimer were more likely than those with normal D-dimer to have critical illness (43.9% versus 18.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.9-3.1]; P<0.001), any thrombotic event (19.4% versus 10.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6]; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (42.4% versus 19.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.9-3.1]; P<0.001), and death (29.9% versus 10.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.6-2.9]; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events increased with the magnitude of D-dimer elevation; individuals with presenting D-dimer >2000 ng/mL had the highest risk of critical illness (66%), thrombotic event (37.8%), acute kidney injury (58.3%), and death (47%). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal D-dimer was frequently observed at admission with COVID-19 and was associated with higher incidence of critical illness, thrombotic events, acute kidney injury, and death. The optimal management of patients with elevated D-dimer in COVID-19 requires further study.

Therapeutic blockade of inflammation in severe COVID-19 infection with intravenous N-acetylcysteine.

Glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency facilitates human coronavirus infection due to glutathione depletion. G6PD deficiency may especially predispose to hemolysis upon coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection when employing pro-oxidant therapy. However, glutathione depletion is reversible by N-acetylcysteine (NAC) administration. We describe a severe case of COVID-19 infection in a G6PD-deficient patient treated with hydroxychloroquine who benefited from intravenous (IV) NAC beyond reversal of hemolysis. NAC blocked hemolysis and elevation of liver enzymes, C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin and allowed removal from respirator and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenator and full recovery of the G6PD-deficient patient. NAC was also administered to 9 additional respirator-dependent COVID-19-infected patients without G6PD deficiency. NAC elicited clinical improvement and markedly reduced CRP in all patients and ferritin in 9/10 patients. NAC mechanism of action may involve the blockade of viral infection and the ensuing cytokine storm that warrant follow-up confirmatory studies in the setting of controlled clinical trials.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in Severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a worldwide pandemic with a high mortality rate among patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The limited data that exist regarding the utility of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in these critically ill patients show poor overall outcomes. This report describes our institutional practice regarding the application and management of ECMO support for patients with COVID-19 and reports promising early outcomes. METHODS: All critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 evaluated for ECMO support from March 10, 2020, to April 24, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were evaluated for ECMO support based on a partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 150 mm Hg or pH of less than 7.25 with a partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide exceeding 60 mm Hg with no life-limiting comorbidities. Patients were cannulated at bedside and were managed with protective lung ventilation, early tracheostomy, bronchoscopies, and proning, as clinically indicated. RESULTS: Among 321 patients intubated for COVID-19, 77 patients (24%) were evaluated for ECMO support, and 27 patients (8.4%) were placed on ECMO. All patients were supported with venovenous ECMO. Current survival is 96.3%, with only 1 death to date in more than 350 days of total ECMO support. Thirteen patients (48.1%) remain on ECMO support, and 13 patients (48.1%) have been successfully decannulated. Seven patients (25.9%) have been discharged from the hospital. Six patients (22.2%) remain in the hospital, of which 4 are on room air. No health care workers who participated in ECMO cannulation developed symptoms of or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The early outcomes presented here suggest that the judicious use of ECMO support in severe COVID-19 may be clinically beneficial.

Novel Percutaneous Tracheostomy for Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is a worldwide pandemic, with many patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy is not recommended by current guidelines as it is considered a superspreading event owing to aerosolization that unduly risks health care workers. METHODS: Patients with severe COVID-19 who were on mechanical ventilation for 5 days or longer were evaluated for percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. We developed a novel percutaneous tracheostomy technique that placed the bronchoscope alongside the endotracheal tube, not inside it. That improved visualization during the procedure and continued standard mechanical ventilation after positioning the inflated endotracheal tube cuff in the distal trachea. This technique offers a significant mitigation for the risk of virus aerosolization during the procedure. RESULTS: From March 10 to April 15, 2020, 270 patients with COVID-19 required invasive mechanical ventilation at New York University Langone Health Manhattan's campus; of those, 98 patients underwent percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. The mean time from intubation to the procedure was 10.6 ± 5 days. Currently, 32 patients (33%) do not require mechanical ventilatory support, 19 (19%) have their tracheostomy tube downsized, and 8 (8%) were decannulated. Forty patients (41%) remain on full ventilator support, and 19 (19%) are weaning from mechanical ventilation. Seven patients (7%) died as a result of respiratory and multiorgan failure. Tracheostomy-related bleeding was the most common complication (5 patients). None of health care providers has had symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our percutaneous tracheostomy technique appears to be safe and effective for COVID-19 patients and safe for health care workers.