Impact of COVID-19 on Sedation Requirements during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is mentioned to express higher analgosedation needs, in comparison to ARDS of other etiologies. The objective of this monocentric retrospective cohort study was to compare the analgosedation needs between C-ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS (non-C-ARDS) on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of all adult patients treated with C-ARDS in our Department of Intensive Care Medicine between March 2020 and April 2022. The control group included patients treated with non-C-ARDS between the years 2009 and 2020. A sedation sum score was created in order to describe the overall analgosedation needs. A total of 115 (31.5%) patients with C-ARDS and 250 (68.5%) with non-C-ARDS requiring VV-ECMO therapy were included in the study. The sedation sum score was significantly higher in the C-ARDS group (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was significantly associated with analgosedation in the univariable analysis. By contrast, the multivariable model did not show a significant association between COVID-19 and the sum score. The year of VV-ECMO support, BMI, SAPS II and prone positioning were significantly associated with sedation needs. The potential impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, and further studies are warranted in order to evaluate specific disease characteristics linked with analgesia and sedation.

Clinical surrogates of dysautonomia predict lethal outcome in COVID-19 on intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Unpredictable vegetative deteriorations made the treatment of patients with acute COVID-19 on intensive care unit particularly challenging during the first waves of the pandemic. Clinical correlates of dysautonomia and their impact on the disease course in critically ill COVID-19 patients are unknown. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data collected during a single-center observational study (March 2020-November 2021) which was performed at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, a large tertiary medical center in Germany. All patients admitted to ICU due to acute COVID-19 disease during the study period were included (n = 361). Heart rate variability (HRV) and blood pressure variability (BPV) per day were used as clinical surrogates of dysautonomia and compared between survivors and non-survivors at different time points after admission. Intraindividual correlation of vital signs with laboratory parameters were calculated and corrected for age, sex and disease severity. RESULTS: Patients who deceased in ICU had a longer stay (median days ± IQR, survivors 11.0 ± 27.3, non-survivors 14.1 ± 18.7, P = 0.85), in contrast time spent under invasive ventilation was not significantly different (median hours ± IQR, survivors 322 ± 782, non-survivors 286 ± 434, P = 0.29). Reduced HRV and BPV predicted lethal outcome in patients staying on ICU longer than 10 days after adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity. Accordingly, HRV was significantly less correlated with inflammatory markers (e.g. CRP and Procalcitonin) and blood carbon dioxide in non-survivors in comparison to survivors indicating uncoupling between autonomic function and inflammation in non-survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests autonomic dysfunction as a contributor to mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first waves of the pandemic. Serving as a surrogate for disease progression, these findings could contribute to the clinical management of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Furthermore, the suggested measure of dysautonomia and correlation with other laboratory parameters is non-invasive, simple, and cost-effective and should be evaluated as an additional outcome parameter in septic patients treated in the ICU in the future.

History of cerebrovascular disease but not dementia increases the risk for secondary vascular events during SARS-CoV-2 infection with presumed Omicron variant: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate if pre-existing neurological conditions, such as dementia and a history of cerebrovascular disease, increase the risk of severe outcomes including death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and vascular events in patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in 2022, when Omicron was the predominant variant. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction test, admitted to the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf from 20 December 2021 until 15 August 2022. In all, 1249 patients were included in the study. In-hospital mortality was 3.8% and the ICU admission rate was 9.9%. Ninety-three patients with chronic cerebrovascular disease and 36 patients with pre-existing all-cause dementia were identified and propensity score matching by age, sex, comorbidities, vaccination status and dexamethasone treatment was performed in a 1:4 ratio with patients without the respective precondition using nearest neighbor matching. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that neither pre-existing cerebrovascular disease nor all-cause dementia increased mortality or the risk for ICU admission. All-cause dementia in the medical history also had no effect on vascular complications under investigation. In contrast, an increased odds ratio for both pulmonary artery embolism and secondary cerebrovascular events was observed in patients with pre-existing chronic cerebrovascular disease and myocardial infarction in the medical history. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients with pre-existing cerebrovascular disease and myocardial infarction in their medical history may be particularly susceptible to vascular complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection with presumed Omicron variant.

Effect of Hemadsorption Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (CYTOCOV-19): A Prospective Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Immunomodulatory therapies have shown beneficial effects in patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with hypercytokinemia might benefit from the removal of inflammatory mediators via hemadsorption. METHODS: Single-center prospective randomized trial at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). Patients with confirmed COVID-19, refractory shock (norepinephrine ≥0.2 µg/kg/min to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg), interleukin-6 (IL-6) ≥500 ng/L, and an indication for renal replacement therapy or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Patients received either hemadsorption therapy (HT) or standard medical therapy (SMT). For HT, a CytoSorb® adsorber was used for up to 5 days and was replaced every 18-24 h. The primary endpoint was sustained hemodynamic improvement (norepinephrine ≤0.05 µg/kg/min ≥24 h). RESULTS: Of 242 screened patients, 24 were randomized and assigned to either HT (N = 12) or SMT (N = 12). Both groups had similar severity as assessed by SAPS II (median 75 points HT group vs. 79 SMT group, p = 0.590) and SOFA (17 vs. 16, p = 0.551). Median IL-6 levels were 2,269 (IQR 948-3,679) and 3,747 (1,301-5,415) ng/L in the HT and SMT groups at baseline, respectively (p = 0.378). Shock resolution (primary endpoint) was reached in 33% (4/12) versus 17% (2/12) in the HT and SMT groups, respectively (p = 0.640). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 58% (7/12) in the HT compared to 67% (8/12) in the SMT group (p = 1.0). During the treatment period of 5 days, 6/12 (50%) of the SMT patients died, in contrast to 1/12 (8%) in the HT group. CONCLUSION: HT was associated with a non-significant trend toward clinical improvement within the intervention period. In selected patients, HT might be an option for stabilization before transfer and further therapeutic decisions. This finding warrants further investigation in larger trials.

Sotrovimab in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infection: a Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.

In vitro data suggest the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab may have lost inhibitory capability against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant. We aimed to provide real-life data on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. We retrospectively analyzed patients who were treated at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, between December 2021 and June 2022. Out of all 1,254 patients, 185 were treated with sotrovimab: 147 patients received sotrovimab monotherapy, and 38 received combination treatment with sotrovimab and remdesivir. We compared in-hospital mortality for the different treatment regimens for patients treated on regular wards and the intensive care unit separately and performed propensity score matching by age, sex, comorbidities, immunosuppression, and additional dexamethasone treatment to select patients who did not receive antiviral treatment for comparison. No difference in in-hospital mortality was observed between any of the treatment groups and the respective control groups. These findings underline that sotrovimab adds no clinical benefit for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infections. IMPORTANCE This study shows that among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection at risk of disease progression, treatment with sotrovimab alone or in combination with remdesivir did not decrease in-hospital mortality. These real-world clinical findings in combination with previous in vitro data about lacking neutralizing activity of sotrovimab against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant do not support sotrovimab as a treatment option in these patients.

[Drug therapy interventions for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection: who, when, and what?] / Medikamentöse Therapiemaßnahmen bei akuter SARS-CoV-2-Infektion: wer, wann und was?

There is a variety of drug therapy options for treatment of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. The updated S3 guideline "Recommendations for inpatient therapy of patients with COVID-19" provides clear recommendations in this regard. Which therapy is best suited for which patient and in which phase of the disease must be decided individually based on risk factors, comorbidities and contraindications. This article provides an overview.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 on Inanimate Surfaces: Don't Trust Ct Value.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA is frequently identified in patient rooms and it was speculated that the viral load quantified by PCR might correlate with infectivity of surfaces. To evaluate Ct values for the prediction of infectivity, we investigated contaminated surfaces and Ct-value changes after disinfection. Viral RNA was detected on 37 of 143 investigated surfaces of an ICU. However, virus isolation failed for surfaces with a high viral RNA load. Also, SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultivated from surfaces artificially contaminated with patient specimens. In order to evaluate the significance of Ct values more precisely, we used surrogate enveloped bacteriophage Φ6. A strong reduction in Φ6 was achieved by three different disinfection methods. Despite a strong reduction in viability almost no change in the Ct values was observed for UV-C and alcoholic surface disinfectant. Disinfection using ozone resulted in a lack of Φ6 recovery as well as a detectable shift in Ct values indicating strong degradation of the viral RNA. The observed lack of significant effects on the detectable viral RNA after effective disinfection suggest that quantitative PCR is not suitable for predicting the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 on inanimate surfaces. Ct values should therefore not be considered as markers for infectivity in this context.

Frequency of IRF5+ dendritic cells is associated with the TLR7-induced inflammatory cytokine response in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to enhanced inflammation driven by innate immune responses. Upon TLR7 stimulation, dendritic cells (DC) mediate the production of inflammatory cytokines, and in particular of type I interferons (IFN). Especially in DCs, IRF5 is a key transcription factor that regulates pathogen-induced immune responses via activation of the MyD88-dependent TLR signaling pathway. In the current study, the frequencies of IRF5+ DCs and the association with innate cytokine responses in SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals with different disease courses were investigated. In addition to a decreased number of mDC and pDC subsets, we could show reduced relative IRF5+ frequencies in mDCs of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals compared with healthy donors. Functionally, mDCs of COVID-19 patients produced lower levels of IL-6 in response to in vitro TLR7 stimulation. IRF5+ mDCs more frequently produced IL-6 and TNF-α compared to their IRF5- counterparts upon TLR7 ligation. The correlation of IRF5+ mDCs with the frequencies of IL-6 and TNF-α producing mDCs were indicators for a role of IRF5 in the regulation of cytokine responses in mDCs. In conclusion, our data provide further insights into the underlying mechanisms of TLR7-dependent immune dysfunction and identify IRF5 as a potential immunomodulatory target in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Autopsy Findings and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused more than 210 000 deaths worldwide. However, little is known about the causes of death and the virus's pathologic features. OBJECTIVE: To validate and compare clinical findings with data from medical autopsy, virtual autopsy, and virologic tests. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Autopsies performed at a single academic medical center, as mandated by the German federal state of Hamburg for patients dying with a polymerase chain reaction-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. PATIENTS: The first 12 consecutive COVID-19-positive deaths. MEASUREMENTS: Complete autopsy, including postmortem computed tomography and histopathologic and virologic analysis, was performed. Clinical data and medical course were evaluated. RESULTS: Median patient age was 73 years (range, 52 to 87 years), 75% of patients were male, and death occurred in the hospital (n = 10) or outpatient sector (n = 2). Coronary heart disease and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the most common comorbid conditions (50% and 25%, respectively). Autopsy revealed deep venous thrombosis in 7 of 12 patients (58%) in whom venous thromboembolism was not suspected before death; pulmonary embolism was the direct cause of death in 4 patients. Postmortem computed tomography revealed reticular infiltration of the lungs with severe bilateral, dense consolidation, whereas histomorphologically diffuse alveolar damage was seen in 8 patients. In all patients, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the lung at high concentrations; viremia in 6 of 10 and 5 of 12 patients demonstrated high viral RNA titers in the liver, kidney, or heart. LIMITATION: Limited sample size. CONCLUSION: The high incidence of thromboembolic events suggests an important role of COVID-19-induced coagulopathy. Further studies are needed to investigate the molecular mechanism and overall clinical incidence of COVID-19-related death, as well as possible therapeutic interventions to reduce it. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Outcomes of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring kidney replacement therapy: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in high hospitalization rates worldwide. Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is frequent and associated with disease severity and poor outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its implication on outcome. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all COVID-19 patients admitted to the Department of Intensive Care Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany) between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2021. Demographics, clinical parameters, type of organ support, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mortality and severity scores were assessed. Results: Three-hundred critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included. The median age of the study population was 61 (IQR 51-71) years and 66% (n = 198) were male. 73% (n = 219) of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation. Overall, 68% (n = 204) of patients suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome and 30% (n = 91) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We found that 46% (n = 139) of patients required KRT. Septic shock (OR 11.818, 95% CI: 5.941-23.506, p < 0.001), higher simplified acute physiology scores (SAPS II) (OR 1.048, 95% CI: 1.014-1.084, p = 0.006) and vasopressor therapy (OR 5.475, 95% CI: 1.127-26.589, p = 0.035) were independently associated with the initiation of KRT. 61% (n = 85) of patients with and 18% (n = 29) without KRT died in the ICU (p < 0.001). Cox regression found that KRT was independently associated with mortality (HR 2.075, 95% CI: 1.342-3.208, p = 0.001) after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high risk of acute kidney injury with about half of patients requiring KRT. The initiation of KRT was associated with high mortality.

[Drug therapy interventions for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection: who, when, and what?] / Medikamentöse Therapiemaßnahmen bei akuter SARS-CoV-2-Infektion: wer, wann und was?

There is a variety of drug therapy options for treatment of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. The updated S3 guideline "Recommendations for inpatient therapy of patients with COVID-19" provides clear recommendations in this regard. Which therapy is best suited for which patient and in which phase of the disease must be decided individually based on risk factors, comorbidities and contraindications. This article provides an overview.

Thromboembolic events in deceased patients with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection: Frequency, characteristics and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) results in respiratory syndromes but also in vascular complications such as thromboembolism (TE). In this regard, immunothrombosis, resulting from inflammation in SARS-CoV-2 infected tissues, has been described. Data on TE in COVID-19 are mainly based on clinical observational and/or incomplete autopsy studies. The true burden of TE and the relevance of genetic predisposition, however, have not been resolved. OBJECTIVES: Here, we report on a consecutive cohort of 100 fully autopsied patients deceased by SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first wave of the pandemic (March to April 2020). We investigated the localization of TE, potential clinical risk factors, and the prothrombotic gene mutations, factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A, in postmortem blood or tissue samples. RESULTS: TE was found in 43/100 autopsies. 93 % of TE events were venous occlusions, with 23 patients having pulmonary thromboembolism (PT) with or without lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Of these, 70 % showed PT restricted to (sub)segmental arteries, consistent with in situ immunothrombosis. Patients with TE had a significantly higher BMI and died more frequently at an intensive care unit. Hereditary thrombophilia factors were not associated with TE. CONCLUSIONS: Our autopsy results show that a significant proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients suffer from TE, affecting predominantly the venous system. Orthotopic peripheral PT was the most frequent finding. Hereditary thrombophilia appears not to be a determinant for TE in COVID-19. However, obesity and the need for intensive care increase the risk of TE in these patients.

Recommendations for the Outpatient Drug Treatment of Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: One of the purposes of outpatient treatment for COVID-19 patients is to prevent severe disease courses and hospitalization. There is a need for evidence-based recommendations to be applied in primary care and specialized outpatient settings. METHODS: This guideline was developed on the basis of publications that were retrieved by a systematic search for randomized controlled trials in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE, and structured consensus generation was carried out with MAGICapp. RESULTS: Unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients with at least one risk factor for a severe disease course may be treated in the early phase of the disease with sotrovimab, remdesivir, or nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Molnupiravir may also be used for such patients if no other clinically appropriate treatment options are available. Immunosuppressed persons with COVID-19 who are at high risk, and whose response to vaccination is expected to be reduced, ought to be treated with sotrovimab. It should be noted, however, that the clinical efficacy of sotrovimab against infections with the omicron subtype BA.2 is uncertain at the currently used dose, as the drug has displayed reduced activity against this subtype in vitro. COVID-19 patients at risk of a severe course may be offered budesonide inhalation, according to an off-label recommendation of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (other medical societies do not recommend either for or against this treatment). Thrombo - embolism prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin may be given to elderly patients or those with a pre-existing illness. No recommendation is made concerning fluvoxamine or colchicine. Acetylsalicylic acid, azithromycin, ivermectin, systemic steroids, and vitamin D should not be used for the outpatient treatment of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Drug treatment is now available for outpatients with COVID-19 in the early phase. Nearly all of the relevant trials have been conducted in unvaccinated subjects; this needs to be kept in mind in patient selection.

Remdesivir-induced emergence of SARS-CoV2 variants in patients with prolonged infection.

We here investigate the impact of antiviral treatments such as remdesivir on intra-host genomic diversity and emergence of SARS-CoV2 variants in patients with a prolonged course of infection. Sequencing and variant analysis performed in 112 longitudinal respiratory samples from 14 SARS-CoV2-infected patients with severe disease progression show that major frequency variants do not generally arise during prolonged infection. However, remdesivir treatment can increase intra-host genomic diversity and result in the emergence of novel major variant species harboring fixed mutations. This is particularly evident in a patient with B cell depletion who rapidly developed mutations in the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene following remdesivir treatment. Remdesivir treatment-associated emergence of novel variants is of great interest in light of current treatment guidelines for hospitalized patients suffering from severe SARS-CoV2 disease, as well as the potential use of remdesivir to preventively treat non-hospitalized patients at high risk for severe disease progression.

Key characteristics impacting survival of COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients. METHODS: 673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival. RESULTS: Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58-99). ICU survival was 31.4%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41-0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20%, 30%, and 38%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28-1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (study ID: DRKS00022964, retrospectively registered, September 7th 2020, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022964 .

Comparison of four diagnostic criteria for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis-A diagnostic accuracy study in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of lung biopsy, there are various algorithms for the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in critically ill patients that rely on clinical signs, underlying conditions, radiological features and mycology. The aim of the present study was to compare four diagnostic algorithms in their ability to differentiate between probable IPA (i.e., requiring treatment) and colonisation. METHODS: For this diagnostic accuracy study, we included a mixed ICU population with a positive Aspergillus culture from respiratory secretions and applied four different diagnostic algorithms to them. We compared agreement among the four algorithms. In a subgroup of patients with lung tissue histopathology available, we determined the sensitivity and specificity of the single algorithms. RESULTS: A total number of 684 critically ill patients (69% medical/31% surgical) were included between 2005 and 2020. Overall, 79% (n = 543) of patients fulfilled the criteria for probable IPA according to at least one diagnostic algorithm. Only 4% of patients (n = 29) fulfilled the criteria for probable IPA according to all four algorithms. Agreement among the four diagnostic criteria was low (Cohen's kappa 0.07-0.29). From 85 patients with histopathological examination of lung tissue, 40% (n = 34) had confirmed IPA. The new EORTC/MSGERC ICU working group criteria had high specificity (0.59 [0.41-0.75]) and sensitivity (0.73 [0.59-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of mixed ICU patients, the agreement among four algorithms for the diagnosis of IPA was low. Although improved by the latest diagnostic criteria, the discrimination of invasive fungal infection from Aspergillus colonisation in critically ill patients remains challenging and requires further optimization.

Surgical correction of a percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: A case report.

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) has become a routine procedure in intensive care, because of its multiple advantages over surgical tracheostomy (ST). CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a 72-year-old patient with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, who received a PDT in the 6th tracheal ring with a lateral puncture of the trachea. This atypical placement of tracheostomy was due to a massive left-pronounced goiter, causing a tracheal shift to the right. To avoid dislocation of the tracheal cannula and prevent recurrent bleeding, surgical revision was decided. After left hemithyroidectomy, oral intubation was temporarily necessary, in order to remove the old tracheostomy. Then suturing of the left lateral tracheal defect and standard ST in the 2nd tracheal cartilage was performed. The patient was successfully weaned and decannulated and his swallowing function remained intact. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: In our case left hemithyroidectomy was necessary, in order to enable an optimal surgical tracheostomy in the 2nd tracheal cartilage. Because mechanical ventilation was carried out proximal to the large tracheal defect after PCT, a secondary closing approach was not an option. The endotracheal cuff was placed above the defect, in order to prevent acute or chronic intraluminal pressure trauma. Postoperative x-ray and bronchoscopy insured the sufficient sealing of the tracheal suturing. CONCLUSION: We describe an unusual placement of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy through a thyroid goiter and our approach to perform a correction surgical tracheostomy.