Prevention of invasive ventilation (PRiVENT)-a prospective, mixed-methods interventional, multicentre study with a parallel comparison group: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a standard therapy for intensive care patients with respiratory failure. With increasing population age and multimorbidity, the number of patients who cannot be weaned from IMV increases, resulting in impaired quality of life and high costs. In addition, human resources are tied up in the care of these patients. METHODS: The PRiVENT intervention is a prospective, mixed-methods interventional, multicentre study with a parallel comparison group selected from insurance claims data of the health insurer Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg (AOK-BW) conducted in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, over 24 months. Four weaning centres supervise 40 intensive care units (ICUs), that are responsible for patient recruitment. The primary outcome, successful weaning from IMV, will be evaluated using a mixed logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using mixed regression models. DISCUSSION: The overall objective of the PRiVENT project is the evaluation of strategies to prevent long-term IMV. Additional objectives aim to improve weaning expertise in and cooperation with the adjacent Intensive Care Units. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05260853).

Antimicrobial efficacy, mode of action and in vivo use of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) for prevention or therapeutic support of infections.

The objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the rapidly developing field of the current state of research on in vivo use of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) to aid infection prevention and control, including naso-pharyngeal, alveolar, topical, and systemic HOCl applications. Also, examples are provided of dedicated applications in COVID-19. A brief background of HOCl's biological and chemical specifics and its physiological role in the innate immune system is provided to understand the effect of in vivo applications in the context of the body's own physiological defense mechanisms.

Beeinträchtigung der inspiratorischen Muskelfunktion nach COVID-19

Hintergrund: Anhaltende Symptome nach akuter Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19) sind häufig und es besteht kein signifikanter Zusammenhang mit der Schwere der akuten Erkrankung. Bei Long COVID (anhaltende Symptome > 4 Wochen nach akuter COVID-19) treten häufig respiratorische Symptome auf, aber Lungenfunktionstests zeigen nur leichte Veränderungen, die die Symptome nicht erklären. Obwohl COVID-19 zu einer Beeinträchtigung des peripheren Nervensystems und der Skelettmuskulatur führen kann, wurde die Funktion der Atemmuskulatur in diesem Zusammenhang nicht untersucht. Methoden: In dieser Studie haben wir den Schweregrad der Dyspnoe (NYHA-Funktionsklasse) bei Long-COVID-Patienten untersucht und analysierten dessen Zusammenhang mit dem Body-Mass-Index (BMI), der Einsekundenkapazität (FEV1), der forcierten Vitalkapazität, anderen Parametern der Bodyplethysmographie, der Diffusionskapazität für Kohlenmonoxid (DLCO), den arteriellen Blutgasen und der Funktion der Atemmuskulatur, die anhand des Atemwegsokklusionsdrucks (P0,1) und des maximalen Inspirationsdrucks (PImax) in 2 Atemwegskliniken in Deutschland zwischen Oktober 2020 und August 2021 gemessen wurde. Ergebnisse: Insgesamt wurden 116 Patienten in die Studie aufgenommen. Das Durchschnittsalter betrug 50,2 ± 14,5 Jahre, BMI 26,7 ± 5,87 kg/m2, NYHA-Klasse I 19%, II 27%, III 41% und IV 14%. Während die Lungenfunktionswerte und die Computertomografie oder die konventionelle Röntgenaufnahme des Brustkorbs im normalen Bereich lagen, war die Funktion der Atemmuskulatur deutlich beeinträchtigt. Der P0,1 war auf 154 ± 83% des Sollwerts erhöht und der PImax war auf 41 ± 25% des Sollwerts reduziert. Die PImax-Reduktion war stark mit dem Schweregrad der Dyspnoe verbunden, aber nicht abhängig vom BMI, der Zeit nach der akuten COVID-19 und den meisten anderen Parametern. Schlussfolgerungen: Diese Studie zeigt, dass die Atemwegssymptome bei Patienten mit Long COVID hauptsächlich durch eine verminderte Inspirationsmuskelkraft verursacht sein können. Die Bewertung von PImax und P0,1 könnte eine Dyspnoe besser erklären als klassische Lungenfunktionstests und die DLCO. Eine prospektive Studie ist erforderlich, um diese Ergebnisse zu bestätigen.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

Impairment of Inspiratory Muscle Function after COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Persistent symptoms after acute coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) are common, and there is no significant correlation with the severity of the acute disease. In long-COVID (persistent symptoms >4 weeks after acute COVID-19), respiratory symptoms are frequent, but lung function testing shows only mild changes that do not explain the symptoms. Although COVID-19 may lead to an impairment of the peripheral nervous system and skeletal muscles, respiratory muscle function has not been examined in this setting. METHODS: In this study, we assessed the severity of dyspnea (NYHA-function class) in long-COVID patients and analyzed its association with body mass index (BMI), FEV1, forced vital capacity, other parameters of body plethysmography, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), arterial blood gases, and inspiratory muscle function, assessed by airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) and maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) in two respiratory clinics in Germany between Oct 2020 and Aug 2021. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 50.2 ± 14.5 years; BMI, 26.7 ± 5.87 kg/m2; NYHA class I, 19%; II, 27%; III, 41%; and IV, 14%. While lung function values and computed tomography or conventional X-ray of the chest were in the normal range, inspiratory muscle function was markedly impaired. P01 was elevated to 154 ± 83%predicted and PImax was reduced to 41 ± 25%predicted. PImax reduction was strongly associated with the severity of dyspnea but independent of BMI, time after acute COVID-19 and most of the other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in long-COVID patients, respiratory symptoms may be mainly caused by reduced inspiratory muscle strength. Assessment of PImax and P0.1 might better explain dyspnea than classical lung function tests and DLCO. A prospective study is needed to confirm these results.

Severe Dysbiosis and Specific Haemophilus and Neisseria Signatures as Hallmarks of the Oropharyngeal Microbiome in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients.

BACKGROUND: At the entry site of respiratory virus infections, the oropharyngeal microbiome has been proposed as a major hub integrating viral and host immune signals. Early studies suggested that infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are associated with changes of the upper and lower airway microbiome, and that specific microbial signatures may predict coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. However, the results are not conclusive, as critical illness can drastically alter a patient's microbiome through multiple confounders. METHODS: To study oropharyngeal microbiome profiles in SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical confounders, and prediction models in COVID-19, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional clinical study analyzing oropharyngeal microbial metagenomes in healthy adults, patients with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections, or with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 (n = 322 participants). RESULTS: In contrast to mild infections, patients admitted to a hospital with moderate or severe COVID-19 showed dysbiotic microbial configurations, which were significantly pronounced in patients treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, or when sampling was performed during prolonged hospitalization. In contrast, specimens collected early after admission allowed us to segregate microbiome features predictive of hospital COVID-19 mortality utilizing machine learning models. Taxonomic signatures were found to perform better than models utilizing clinical variables with Neisseria and Haemophilus species abundances as most important features. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the infection per se, several factors shape the oropharyngeal microbiome of severely affected COVID-19 patients and deserve consideration in the interpretation of the role of the microbiome in severe COVID-19. Nevertheless, we were able to extract microbial features that can help to predict clinical outcomes.

Gender Differences in Health Care Workers' Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs for COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in vaccine acceptance among health care workers (HCWs) are well documented, but the extent to which these depend on occupational group membership is less well studied. We aimed to determine vaccine acceptance and reasons of hesitancy among HCWs of respiratory clinics in Germany with respect to gender and occupational group membership. METHODS: An online questionnaire for hospital staff of all professional groups was created to assess experiences with and attitudes towards COVID-19 and the available vaccines. Employees of five clinics were surveyed from 15 to 28 March 2021. RESULTS: 962 employees (565 [72%] female) took part in the survey. Overall vaccination acceptance was 72.8%. Nurses and physicians showed greater willingness to be vaccinated than members of other professions (72.8%, 84.5%, 65.8%, respectively; p = 0.006). In multivariate analyses, worries about COVID-19 late effects (odds ratio (OR) 2.86; p < 0.001) and affiliation with physicians (OR 2.20; p = 0.025) were independently associated with the willingness for vaccination, whereas age <35 years (OR 0.61; p = 0.022) and worries about late effects of vaccination (OR 0.13; p < 0.001) predicted vaccination hesitancy; no differences were seen with respect to gender. In separate analyses for men and women, only for men worries about COVID-19 late effects were relevant, while among women, age <35 years, worries about late effects of vaccination and worries about COVID-19 late effects played a role. CONCLUSIONS: There was no overall difference in vaccination acceptance between male and female HCWs, but there were gender-specific differences in the individual reasons on which this decision-making was based.

Alpha 1 Antitrypsin Therapy in Patients with Alpha 1 Antitrypsin Deficiency: Perspectives from a Registry Study and Practical Considerations for Self-Administration During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a hereditary condition characterized by low serum Alpha 1 Antitrypsin (AAT) levels and a predisposition towards early-onset emphysema. Infusion of AAT is the only disease-modifying therapy that can sufficiently raise plasma AAT levels above the putative protective threshold and reduce the decline in lung density loss. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registry studies support the clinical efficacy of AAT therapy in slowing the progression of AATD-related emphysema and improving survival outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted physicians to develop additional strategies for delivering AAT therapy, which are not only more convenient for the patient, but are "COVID-19 friendly", thereby reducing the risk of exposing these vulnerable patients. Intravenous (IV) self-administration of AAT therapy is likely to be beneficial in certain subgroups of patients with AATD and can remove the need for weekly hospital visits, thereby improving independence and well-being. Increasing the awareness of self-administration in AATD through the development of formal guidelines and training programs is required among both physicians and patients and will play an essential role, especially post-COVID-19, in encouraging physicians to consider self-administration for AATD in suitable patients. This review summarizes the benefits of AAT therapy on the clinical endpoints of mortality and quality of life (QoL) and discusses the benefits of self-administration therapy compared with conventional therapy administered by a healthcare professional. In addition, this review highlights the challenges of providing AAT therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential considerations for its implementation thereafter.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the behaviour and health status of patients with COPD: results from the German COPD cohort COSYCONET.

BACKGROUND: Infection control measures for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might have affected management and clinical state of patients with COPD. We analysed to which extent this common notion is fact-based. METHODS: Patients of the COSYCONET cohort were contacted with three recurring surveys (COVID1, 2 and 3 at 0, 3 and 6 months, respectively). The questionnaires comprised behaviour, clinical and functional state, and medical treatment. The responses to the questionnaires were compared amongst themselves and with pre-COVID information from the last visit of COSYCONET. RESULTS: Overall, 594 patients were contacted and 375 patients (58% males, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 61±22% predicted) provided valid data in COVID1 and COVID2. Five patients reported infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most patients - except for patients with higher education - reported compliance with recommended protective measures, whereby compliance to hygiene, contact and access to physicians slightly improved between COVID1 and COVID2. Also, patients obtained more information from physicians than from public media. In the majority of cases, the personal physician could not be substituted by remote consultation. Over time, symptoms slightly increased and self-assessed physical capacity decreased. Results of COVID3 were similar. Women and patients with more exacerbations and dyspnoea avoided medical consultations, whereas Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) D patients were more amenable to tele-consultation. CONCLUSION: In well-characterised COPD patients, we observed on average slight deteriorations of clinical state during the period of COVID-19 restrictions, with high and partially increasing adherence to protective measures. The data suggest that in particular, women and GOLD D patients should be actively contacted by physicians to identify deteriorations.

Description and analysis of representative COVID-19 cases-A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most data on COVID-19 was collected in hospitalized cases. Much less is known about the spectrum of disease in entire populations. In this study, we examine a representative cohort of primarily symptomatic cases in an administrative district in Southern Germany. METHODS: We contacted all confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the administrative district. Consenting participants answered a retrospective survey either via a telephone, electronically or via mail. Clinical and sociodemographic features were compared between hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Additionally, we assessed potential risk factors for hospitalization and time to hospitalization in a series of regression models. RESULTS: We included 897 participants in our study, 69% out of 1,305 total cases in the district with a mean age of 47 years (range 2-97), 51% of which were female and 47% had a pre-existing illness. The percentage of asymptomatic, mild, moderate (leading to hospital admission) and critical illness (requiring mechanical ventilation) was 54 patients (6%), 713 (79%), 97 (11%) and 16 (2%), respectively. Seventeen patients (2%) died. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (65%), cough (62%) and dysgeusia (60%). The risk factors for hospitalization included older age (OR 1.05 per year increase; 95% CI 1.04-1.07) preexisting lung conditions (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.62-5.88). Female sex was a protective factor (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.77). CONCLUSION: This representative analysis of primarily symptomatic COVID-19 cases confirms age, male sex and preexisting lung conditions but not cardiovascular disease as risk factors for severe illness. Almost 80% of infection take a mild course, whereas 13% of patients suffer moderate to severe illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00022926. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.

Predictors and Prognostic Implications of Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac manifestation of COVID-19 has been reported during the COVID pandemic. The role of cardiac arrhythmias in COVID-19 is insufficiently understood. This study assesses the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias and their prognostic implications in hospitalized COVID-19-patients. METHODS: A total of 166 patients from eight centers who were hospitalized for COVID-19 from 03/2020-06/2020 were included. Medical records were systematically analyzed for baseline characteristics, biomarkers, cardiac arrhythmias and clinical outcome parameters related to the index hospitalization. Predisposing risk factors for arrhythmias were identified. Furthermore, the influence of arrhythmia on the course of disease and related outcomes was assessed using univariate and multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Arrhythmias were detected in 20.5% of patients. Atrial fibrillation was the most common arrhythmia. Age and cardiovascular disease were predictors for new-onset arrhythmia. Arrhythmia was associated with a pronounced increase in cardiac biomarkers, prolonged hospitalization, and admission to intensive- or intermediate-care-units, mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. In multiple regression analyses, incident arrhythmia was strongly associated with duration of hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. Cardiovascular disease was associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Arrhythmia was the most common cardiac event in association with hospitalization for COVID-19. Older age and cardiovascular disease predisposed for arrhythmia during hospitalization. Whereas in-hospital mortality is affected by underlying cardiovascular conditions, arrhythmia during hospitalization for COVID-19 is independently associated with prolonged hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. Thus, incident arrhythmia may indicate a patient subgroup at risk for a severe course of disease.

Use of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (Prevagen or Octagam) for the Treatment of COVID-19: Retrospective Case Series.

Treatment with immunomodulators, such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), may attenuate inflammatory responses observed in the severe stages of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). We retrospectively evaluated the clinical courses of 12 COVID-19 patients who received IVIG at various stages of their illness, including within the first 72 h of clinical presentation, after initiation of mechanical ventilation, and after prolonged ventilation and ICU stay. The patients included 9 men and 3 women with a median age of 50 years (range 23-74), median Charlson Comorbidity Score of 2 (range 0-7), and median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Score of 13 (range 5-33) at the time of IVIG. The IVIG total dose ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 g/kg (median 1.25 g/kg) distributed over 1-4 daily doses. The most common regimen received was 0.5 g/kg daily for 3 days. The median time to IVIG administration was 9 days (range 0-48 days) after admission. The median time from first IVIG dose administration to hospital discharge was 14 days (range 3-48). The 5 patients who received IVIG ≤4 days of admission demonstrated a significantly shorter length of hospital stay after treatment (median 7 days, range 3-14 days) than the 7 patients who received it >7 days after admission (median 33 days, range 8-48 days, p = 0.03, Mann-Whitney U test). These cases demonstrate that IVIG may improve the clinical state of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. Despite very high illness severity scores, all patients survived hospital discharge. No thrombotic events occurred and IVIG was well tolerated, despite most cases demonstrating very elevated D-dimer suggestive of active intravascular fibrinolysis. We believe that IVIG warrants immediate clinical trial evaluation in COVID-19 to confirm its role as a mainstay treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 infection as a means to reduce hospital stay and utilization of ICU resources, including mechanical ventilation, and potentially reduce mortality.

Expert panel consensus statement on the applications and precaution strategies of bronchoscopy in patients with COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel coronavirus with higher transmissibility compared with SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 is an unprecedented global crisis that has not been experienced, which is still disrupting health systems, economies, and societies around the world by the rapid spread. Bronchoscopy plays an important role in diagnosis and therapy of pulmonary diseases, especially in patients with severe pulmonary infection, however, application of bronchoscopy in patients suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection is extremely limited for the potential airborne transmission from aerosol generated during the procedure. This consensus statement was completed by expert panel of Interventional & Minimally Invasive Respiratory Committee of China Medical Education Association, and the issues were summarized as seven key topics to define the indications of bronchoscopy and matters needing attentions on the bronchoscopy procedures in patients with COVID-19, as well as the protective precaution strategies to avoid nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection.